> On Oct 20, 2019, at 7:28 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> On 20/10/2019 01:39, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Not yet having experience working on PHP's parser I do not know how it is
>> configured nor what about the design of PHP requires keywords unable to be
>> used as constants, class names, function
Hi Mike,
On 20/10/2019 01:39, Mike Schinkel wrote:
Not yet having experience working on PHP's parser I do not know how it is
configured nor what about the design of PHP requires keywords unable to be used
as constants, class names, function or method names. I know this is a tangent
but that
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 3:01 AM, A.L.E.C wrote:
>>> It might be not useful enough to justify a BC break.
>
> That was my intention, to find more value in a new feature to justify BC
> break.
Your point was well taken, which is why I am now suggesting we consider (one
of) the following instead
On 10/20/19 2:39 AM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> case X:
>> if (something) {
>> fallthrough;
>>}
>> something-else;
>> break;
>> case Y:
>
> Interesting.
>
> What would you expect this to do? It is not intuitively obvious to me.
Directly jump to the next
> On Oct 19, 2019, at 3:21 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> If we're going to do this, let's take the opportunity to make it even more
> useful.
Assuming this idea truly does have momentum, I hope we do not get so focused on
the `perfect` that we postpone the `good` indefinitely. There is always next
> On Oct 19, 2019, at 3:05 AM, A.L.E.C wrote:
> Imo, this would make more sense if fallthrough did something more, e.g.
> allowing
>
> case X:
> if (something) {
> fallthrough;
>}
> something-else;
> break;
> case Y:
Interesting.
What would you
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 12:06 AM A.L.E.C wrote:
> On 10/18/19 8:57 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Imo, this would make more sense if fallthrough did something more, e.g.
> allowing
>
> case X:
> if (something) {
> fallthrough;
> }
> something-else;
>
On 10/18/19 8:57 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Suggestion: `next;` instead?
>
> I am agnostic about which word is used, so I would open up for suggestions if
> others think there is a better word than `fallthrough`.
>
> As far as I care, it could be any of the following[1] as long as the
>
> On Oct 18, 2019, at 4:45 AM, Markus Fischer wrote:
>
> On 18.10.19 00:07, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>>case 'educationtype':
>> $update = false;
>> fallthrough;
>
> I was about to suggest `continue`, alas we know that would clash :-)
>
> Suggestion: `next;` instead?
I am agnostic
> On Oct 17, 2019, at 11:14 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
> +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.
>
Hi Bishop,
I'm not the proposer, but would like to answer your questions anyway.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 04:14, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> Do you envision this token accepting an optional argument, as break does,
> to fall-through multiple nesting levels? Eg:
>
> $x = $y = $z = 1;
> switch ($x)
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Mike Schinkel 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
Hi All,
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)
13 matches
Mail list logo
