Re: [RFC] Match expression

On 10/09/2017 20:16, Theodore Brown wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2017 12:45 PM Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:

Would it be possible to add an optional $strict parameter to switch? E.g.

switch ($i, true) {

I'd very much prefer a "strict switch ($i) { ... }" over a second

parameter. What do either of you think of my "switch-use" proposal, which would spell this as "switch ($i) use (===)"? That seems more complicated and confusing than either of the other options. Normally use() is for inheriting variables in anonymous functions.

The choice of "use" as the keyword was largely because it's already a reserved word, with multiple meanings in different contexts. As well as anonymous functions, it's the keyword for importing names from other namespaces, and for including a trait into a class. I would be perfectly happy to hear alternative keyword or syntax suggestions. It might not need a keyword at all, as it could just be "switch ($i ===) { ... }" or "switch ($i) === { ... }", although I'm not that keen on either of those. However, I think using "===" in some form is definitely clearer than ", true", which could mean anything; and even "strict" could have multiple meanings - for instance, a "strict switch" might be one where "break" was mandatory. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]