Am 16.10.2019 um 21:19 schrieb Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com<mailto:claude.pa...@gmail.com>>:
Le 16 oct. 2019 à 19:11, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com>> a écrit : Am 16.10.2019 um 03:46 schrieb David Rodrigues <david.pro...@gmail.com<mailto:david.pro...@gmail.com>>: Hello. I like to suggests a discussion about a FR to make possible to inline switch, as an alternative to nested inline conditionals. $value = switch (expr()) { case A1: return A2; case B1: return B2; default: return C; } Instead of: $expr = expr(); $value = $expr == A1 ? A2 : ( $expr == B1 ? B2 : C ); Just a discussion to check what do you think. -- David Rodrigues Hey David, what's the concrete advantage of this syntax as opposed to the already possible: $value = [ A1 => A2, B1 => B2, ][expr()] ?? C; there are only differences in edge cases (with floats or with type mixing) … but for the vast majority of use cases, it is just as powerful as what you proposed. Bob One concrete advantage is, when A2 or B2 are complex expressions that are costly to evaluate or that throw error when given inappropriate input, they are not evaluated needlessly. —Claude Most switch values aren't expensive though. There's always a possibility to prefix with fn() =>: $value = ([ A1 => fn() => A2, B1 => fn() => B2, ][expr()] ?? fn() => C)(); For the normal case, this is unneeded though (as in, most of my use cases for "inline switches" are typically with string operations). Your mileage may vary. Bob
