On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 11:23 AM Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2020-06-22 kl. 18:05, skrev Benas IML: > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 6:35 PM Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Ilija,Den 2020-06-18 kl. 22:51, skrev Ilija Tovilo: > >> > >>> Hi Björn > >>> > >>>>> I'd like to announce the match expression v2 RFC: > >>>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/match_expression_v2 > >>>> Well one could argue that when working with legacy code containing > >>>> switch statements where one gradually migrates to match, it might be > >>>> easier to have the same separator, i.e. ":". > >>> I think that's somewhat of a moot point. The syntax of match is quite > >>> different (match instead of switch, no case, no break, colon instead > >>> of case, comma instead of semicolon, trailing semicolon). Just making > >>> one of those the same doesn't make a meaningful difference for ease of > >>> migration. > >> Agree on that! One thing though. Is semicolon mandatory or is it > optional > >> like in the first RFC? Feels a bit odd with a semicolon after a curly > >> bracket. > >> > > It's mandatory since it's an expression, not a block. Another example of > an > > expression would be a closure: > > > > ``` > > $fn = function () { > > ... > > }; // a semicolon is mandatory here. > > ``` > > Absolutely so. I was thinking of the case mentioned in v1 RFC when it's > used > as a stand-alone expression. > match ($y) { > ... > }; > Then it's not a standalone expression but a block. In this case, you cannot add an optional semicolon at all. But this RFC v2 is not proposing to add a block, therefore you won't be allowed to use `match` construct as a standalone expression anyways. ` Optional? > > r//Björn L >
