Following https://github.com/rocq-prover/rocq/wiki/Rocq-Call-2026-03-17 it was agreed that the current if <term : inductive_with_two_constructos> then term else term syntactic sugar for match should be deprecated (except for (things coercible to) bool). We thus first need a replacement. Please list offers below, with perceived pros and cons, and historical use if any. Please try to keep the "positive" and "negative" offers in the same order when there is a correspondance

• if <term> is <pattern> then <term> else <term>

  • already used in MathComp ecosystem
  • one of the syntax considered for the C++ standard (c.f., https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2392r3.pdf , with context sensitive keyword is )
  • pros:
    • short
    • reads like a sentence
    • <term> and <pattern> in same order as match <term> with <pattern>
  • cons:
    • requires making is a keyword (but CI https://github.com/rocq-prover/rocq/pull/21609 seems to indicate no dramatic effect, except for UniMath that is using is extensively as a variable name)
    • similar to syntaxes for pointers in other languages (but no pointers in Rocq)

• if <term> .is. <pattern> then <term> else <term> (or other variants like if <term> \is <pattern>...)

  • used in Ada
  • pros:
    • <term> and <pattern> in same order as match <term> with <pattern>
  • cons:
    • longer
    • breaks reading
    • requires making .is. a keyword (but maybe absolutely nobody uses it yet?)

• if let <pattern> := <term> then <term> else <term>

  • used in Rust and Lean
  • pros:
    • no new keyword
  • cons:
    • let currently indicates an irrefutable pattern, not a switch
    • longer
    • <term> and pattern> in reversed order with respect to the unsugared match construct
    • common prefix with eg if let x := tt in true then ... else ... (which is currently accepted)

• match <term> with <pattern> then <term> else <term>

  • pros:
    • no new keyword
  • cons:
    • longer

• if <term> match <pattern> then <term> else <term>

  • one of the syntax considered for the C++ standard (the other one uses context-sensitive keywords is and as)
  • pros:
    • no new keyword
  • cons
    • Rocq already allows match in argument position (contrarily to OCaml where it is a syntax error), so this is slightly ambiguous
    • longer
    • may feel a bit strange to reuse the match keyword with the role of the with keyword in match-with construct

• if <term> isn't <pattern> then <term> else <term>

  • already used in MathComp ecosystem
  • pros:
    • short
    • reads like a sentence
    • <term> and <pattern> in same order as match <term> with <pattern>
  • cons:
    • bindings in second branch may not be obvious
    • requires making isn't a keyword (though CI seems to indicate nobody uses it)

• unless <term> is <pattern> then <term> else <term>

  • pros:
    • "the pattern matching clause is still framed positively, so it restores, in my mind, the idea that some new variables are bound."
    • reads like a sentence
    • <term> and <pattern> in same order as match <term> with <pattern>
  • cons:
    • requires making unless a keyword

• let <pattern> := <term> else <term> in <term>

  • similar to Rust
  • pros:
    • indentation would be nice when used in sequence or with a large second branch
  • cons:
    • let currently indicates an irrefutable pattern, not a switch

• if <term> is <pattern> else <term> then <term>

  • pros:
    • short
    • symmetric to if <term> is <pattern> then <term> else <term>
  • cons:
    • bindings in second branch may not be obvious
    • same other cons as if <term> is <pattern> then <term> else <term>