Alexandre Truppel

My initial reaction after reading the title was that this was unnecessary. However, after thinking about it for longer, I realised how useful this actually is, and how many times...

> I tried to avoid mentioning any other postfix keywords because I don't want this RFC to turn into arguing about other postfix alternatives. However I understand it's always the...

@sunfishcode I guess the argument there is that postfix `match` is on the same level of usefulness as method chaining. We can also break method chains into `let x =...

@steffahn Yes, of course 😂. This is a mistake I make regularly, but the compiler catches it for me. Naturally, here... there was no compiler.

@ChayimFriedman2 "But I don't think it is worth to introduce a new way to do the same thing, just to be able to chain `match`es." I understand and agree your...

Regarding the comments of: "naming the match scrutinee is a good thing and/or it should always be required" I agree, but not always. For example: @afetisov "Currently, the match expressions...

@afetisov - "How often do you need to write such ad-hoc matches which shouldn't be extracted into their own separate functions?" I honestly don't know. I can say, for my...

> > > Given that the linked crate has ~50k downloads over the course of a 1 1/2 years, I'm not inclined to believe that it's a "core feature". This...

I believe the answer is the following. You’re correct that ownership of `bar` is transferred to the outside of the function. However, the problem is that `bar` is created on...

+1 on the general idea. I'm frequently running into cases where it would be nice to have a quick (with as little code as possible) "non-returning" version of `?`. I'm...