Re: The poor state of documentation of pcase like things.

[Michael Heerdegen]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> >> Elisp manual entry, arguably the decisive reference for use of pcase,
> >> actively avoids mentioning ' at all in order not to have to upset its
> >> terminology.

The reason is that the manual had not been updated after 'VAL had been
introduced.  It dates from a time where ` was indeed the only way of
quoting.

> >> This is not helpful, as witnessed by the actual code extracts seen in
> >> the Emacs code base and mailing list.
> >
> > Why don't you suggest an improvement (with a patch)?
>
> Because I am not the one interested in promoting pcase?  Frankly, I
> don't even have enough time to get the stuff I am interested in done.

I'll try to take care of that stuff.


After all, despite of the tone on both sides, I think we came to
some conclusions:

  - The pcase docs must be updated, esp. wrt quoting/ backquote, and
  missing stuff (e.g. first matching branches' body is executed,
  remaining branches are ignored).

  - We should not use it in cases where a different thing (esp. cl-case)
  exactly fits.  "Promoters" should use it sparse in contributions and
  only in cases where it improves readability or makes the case
  distinction clearer (given the reader read the documentation).  Others
  should accept that some people find it handy and will use it in such
  cases in their contributions.

  - Occurrences in the sources must be revised.


The only substantial difference, I think, was whether the design and
concept of pcase is useful.  I think it's ok when people have different
preferences here (like with `loop', which I personally avoid btw).


Thanks everyone,

Michael.