Hey Doug,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 21:24 Doug Nelson <dougnel...@silktide.com> wrote: > Hi Marco, > > Is there any chance you can elaborate on why you feel it's a bad idea? > > Both you and Sara at different points have talked about thinking was bad > practice, but I've not read anything compelling about why it should be > considered as such. > > Kind regards, > Doug Nelson > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 18:14, Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey Larry, >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 6:34 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I present to Internals this tiny RFC to follow up on the match() >> > expression RFC from earlier in the year. There was solidly positive >> > support for this shortcut previously but it was removed for simplicity >> at >> > the time, with the intent to bring it back later. It's now later. >> > >> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-match >> > >> >> Overall back to the `switch (true)` case, which IMO is not a good idea in >> first place :| >> >> Nothing wrong with using a set of conditional that are put in a sequence >> through `if ()`, for these rare cases. >> >> Marco Pivetta >> >> http://twitter.com/Ocramius >> >> http://ocramius.github.com/ >> > > > -- > Doug Nelson > Senior Software Engineer > It's effectively yet another way to write something that already exists, which means more syntax to learn, more syntax to deal with (in downstream tooling), and that for an edge case being a fall-through list of boolean expressions, which is what already happens by using `if` with early return statements. Let me rephrase it then: * It brings little to no advantage to the table for something seen very rarely (`match` already being super-rare, since adoption didn't even start yet) * It increases language complexity Every time new AST is to be added, that complexity needs to be weighed against the benefits, and I don't see any compelling ones here.
