diff --git a/text/0000-else-match.md b/text/0000-else-match.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..75faf49878d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0000-else-match.md
@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+- Feature Name: Else Match
+- Start Date: 2016-07-26
+- RFC PR:
+- Rust Issue:
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Extend the `if` expression to accept an `else match` block.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+This proposal is meant to reduce the verbosity of writing `if ... else { match ... } ` expressions.
+
+Code such as:
+
+```rust
+if foo() {
+    do_this();
+} else {
+    match bar() {
+        baz() => do_that(),
+        _ => flag = true
+    }
+}
+```
+
+can be simpler and more concise:
+
+```rust
+if foo() {
+    do_this();
+} else match bar() {
+    baz() => do_that()
+    _ => flag = true
+}
+```
+
+## Use-cases
+
+Though rare, this pattern does exist in several Rust projects.
+
+### [xsv](https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv)
+
+<https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv/blob/master/src/cmd/stats.rs#L311>:
+
+Before:
+
+```rust
+if !self.typ.is_number() {
+    pieces.push(empty()); pieces.push(empty());
+} else {
+    match self.online {
+        Some(ref v) => {
+            pieces.push(v.mean().to_string());
+            pieces.push(v.stddev().to_string());
+        }
+        None => { pieces.push(empty()); pieces.push(empty()); }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+After:
+
+```rust
+if !self.typ.is_number() {
+    pieces.push(empty()); pieces.push(empty());
+} else match self.online {
+    Some(ref v) => {
+        pieces.push(v.mean().to_string());
+        pieces.push(v.stddev().to_string());
+    }
+    None => { pieces.push(empty()); pieces.push(empty()); }
+}
+```
+
+### [trust-dns](https://github.com/bluejekyll/trust-dns)
+
+<https://github.com/bluejekyll/trust-dns/blob/master/src/authority/authority.rs#L558>:
+
+Before:
+
+```rust
+if class == self.class {
+  match rr.get_rr_type() {
+    RecordType::ANY | RecordType::AXFR | RecordType::IXFR => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+    _ => (),
+  }
+} else {
+  match class {
+    DNSClass::ANY => {
+      if rr.get_ttl() != 0 { return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr) }
+      if let &RData::NULL(..) = rr.get_rdata() { () }
+      else { return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr) }
+      match rr.get_rr_type() {
+        RecordType::AXFR | RecordType::IXFR => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+        _ => (),
+      }
+    },
+    DNSClass::NONE => {
+      if rr.get_ttl() != 0 { return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr) }
+      match rr.get_rr_type() {
+        RecordType::ANY | RecordType::AXFR | RecordType::IXFR => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+        _ => (),
+      }
+    },
+    _ => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+  }
+}
+```
+
+After:
+
+```rust
+if class == self.class {
+  match rr.get_rr_type() {
+    RecordType::ANY | RecordType::AXFR | RecordType::IXFR => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+    _ => (),
+  }
+} else match class {
+  DNSClass::ANY => {
+    if rr.get_ttl() != 0 { return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr) }
+    if let &RData::NULL(..) = rr.get_rdata() { () }
+    else { return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr) }
+    match rr.get_rr_type() {
+      RecordType::AXFR | RecordType::IXFR => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+      _ => (),
+    }
+  },
+  DNSClass::NONE => {
+    if rr.get_ttl() != 0 { return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr) }
+    match rr.get_rr_type() {
+      RecordType::ANY | RecordType::AXFR | RecordType::IXFR => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+      _ => (),
+    }
+  },
+  _ => return Err(ResponseCode::FormErr),
+}
+```
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+## Grammar
+
+See the following document for an (incomplete) guide to the grammar used in Rust:
+[Rust Documentation → Grammar](https://doc.rust-lang.org/grammar.html).
+
+This proposal modifies the
+[if expression grammar](https://doc.rust-lang.org/grammar.html#if-expressions).
+
+```
+ else_tail : "else" [ if_expr | if_let_expr
++                   | match_expr
+                    | '{' block '}' ] ;
+```
+
+## Execution
+
+An `else match` block should be treated exactly the same as an `else` block with a single `match`
+expression.
+
+### Dead code
+
+The next `else` block after an `else match` is never run. This is because `match` itself does not
+take on an `else` block. Whether `match` should allow an `else` or not should be addressed in a
+separate proposal.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+- Slight maintainability problems whenever you need to add additional logic to an `else` block.
+- Can be more of a stylistic issue than an ergonomics issue.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+Not an alternative but an addition to the proposal: `if match` expressions. This would add an
+additional grammar rule and modify an existing one:
+
+```
++ if_match_expr : "if" match_expr else_tail ? ;
+```
+
+```
+ expr : literal | path | tuple_expr | unit_expr | struct_expr
+      | block_expr | method_call_expr | field_expr | array_expr
+      | idx_expr | range_expr | unop_expr | binop_expr
+      | paren_expr | call_expr | lambda_expr | while_expr
+      | loop_expr | break_expr | continue_expr | for_expr
+      | if_expr | match_expr | if_let_expr | while_let_expr
+-     | return_expr ;
++     | if_match_expr | return_expr ;
+```
+
+Should work nearly the same as `else match`.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+Whether to allow `match` to take on an `else` block. This should be addressed
+in a separate proposal.