On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote:
> Before creating an RFC I wanted to get reactions to the idea of adding
> FALLTHROUGH option to SWITCH/CASE for when the developer explicitly want
> logic to fall through to the next case and does not want to use a BREAK.
>
> My simples motivation for this feature is that my IDE (PhpStorm) always
> flags CASE statements w/o BREAKs because it cannot know when I intend for
> the logic to fallthrough and not break. If there was an optional
> FALLTHROUGH then my IDE could flag any CASE statements that do not have a
> FALLTHROUGH or BREAK — which would indicate an error of my intent — and
> avoid flagging all the situations where I intentionally want it to fall
> through.
>
> Beyond that, this might also be useful for other static analysis tools
> such as PhpStan.
> Ust
> Additionally it could be added in 8.0 and then in 8.1 flagged with a
> warning when a CASE does not have one for the two, but only if people don't
> object to this. While I know some on this list feel strongly that warnings
> must come with to future plans to generate errors I would personally be
> 100% okay if it indefinitely generated only a warning.
>
> In summary I want a mechanism to be allow me to explicitly indicate my
> intent with respect to SELECT/CASE statements. What do you think? Is this
> worthy of an RFC, or is there some reason a majority would object to such
> an addition?
>
+1. It's 100% opt-in. People can keep using implicit fall-through, their
own /* fallthrough */ comments, or the new token. There's virtually no
overhead in the compile phase and it doesn't mess with the jump table
optimizations. There's precedent for this desire in PHP static analyzers
[1] as well as other major projects: eg, the Linux Foundation just
completed a 2 year project to remove implicit fall-through in the Linux
kernel [2] (*).
That said, some questions:
Do you envision this token accepting an optional argument, as break does,
to fall-through multiple nesting levels? Eg:
<?php
$x = $y = $z = 1;
switch ($x) {
case 1:
switch ($y) {
case 1:
switch ($z) {
case 1: fallthrough 3;
case 2: echo 'z2';
}
}
break;
case 2: echo 'x2'; break;
}
?>
What do you envision the result of indicating fall-through to no subsequent
case? Eg:
<?php
switch ($x) {
case 1: fallthrough;
}
?>
Would a "pragma" (of sorts) be a part of the concept?
<?php declare(strict_break=1);
switch ($x) {
case 1: echo 'x1'; // ImplicitBreakError thrown here
case 2: echo 'x2';
}
?>
[1]:https://github.com/phan/phan/issues/2550
[2]:https://lwn.net/Articles/794944/
(*) Fun trivia: PHP is mentioned in that LWN article about naming
conventions.
