bug#31350: 27.0; `pcase' message: "Redundant pcase pattern"

[Drew Adams]

> Perhaps the warning should be more explicit?  "Redundant pcase pattern"
> is obvious if you already know what it means, but if you don't, it's
> not.  :-)  So something like "pcase pattern shadowed by previous pcase
> pattern" or something along those lines?

That's a start.  But as I said:

  And even if a user (somehow) understands that later
  cases are made redundant by earlier ones, how to tell
  which earlier ones are implicated?

Just saying that some previous pcase pattern makes
this one redundant doesn't tell you which previous
pattern that does that.  It should.