Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129494
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 16:21:15 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <88368059-de1b-4598-8680-7611eab043cd@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKxcST_Ug+fCWGfwydRm8And2=iPAeZZgW8S296f=TymCBDEOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e25ea0a6-bb82-4762-9e51-a543d0e6efe5@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAKxcST_Ug+fCWGfwydRm8And2=iPAeZZgW8S296f=TymCBDEOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pattern Matching
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, at 3:57 PM, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 9:39=E2=80=AFPM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtec=
h.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks.  Ilija and I would like to present our latest RFC endeavor,=
 pattern matching:
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pattern-matching
>>=20
>> You may note the date on the RFC is from 2020.  Yes, we really have h=
ad this one in-progress for 5 years. :-)  (Though it was inactive for ma=
ny of those years, in fairness.)  Pattern matching was intended as the n=
ext follow up to Enums, as it's a stepping stone toward full ADT support=
.  However, we also feel it has enormous benefit on its own for simplify=
ing complex comparisons.
>>=20
>> This RFC has been through numerous iterations, including a full imple=
mentation rewrite just recently that made a number of features much easi=
er.  We have therefore included two patterns that were previously slated=
 for later inclusion but turned out to be trivially easy in the new appr=
oach.  (Variable pinning and numeric comparison.)
>>=20
>> Nonetheless, there are two outstanding questions on which we are look=
ing for feedback.
>>=20
>> Naturally given the timing, we will not be calling a vote until at le=
ast late January, regardless of how the discussion goes.  So, plenty of =
time to express your support. :-)
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> Looking decent so far.=20
>
> match() seems a bit clunky in current state. Is it just your code=20
> example, and you could come with another one?
>
> The match(true) and repeating of $somevar over and over is the clunky =
part.=20
>
> Normal match($somevar) .. this is clean and works like switch() so=20
> people are happy adopting it .. whereas match() and match() is, look=20
> similar but you have to use them differently ?
>
> Can you clarify?

I think you're misinterpreting the example.

The first block under "match() enhancement" is the syntax we propose to =
have.

The second block is what it would decompose to, aka, an explanation of w=
hat it means.  While you could write the second block, you really should=
n't when the first block is available and better.

--Larry Garfield