[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: The poor state of documentation of pcase like things.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 06:10:34 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0

On 01/03/2016 06:07 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 01/03/2016 11:02 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Uh what?  Whether pcase does not help with simple cases should have
>>> little bearing on whether it helps with more complex cases.
>> But it does. It takes less code,
> You mean, less input.

A side effect of a more expressive system.

>> and follows the common design of pattern matching, which isn't hard to
>> understand and internalize.
> And yet Emacs has more than just regexp operations for dealing with
> strings, and most string operations are carried out without reverting to
> regexps.
>> In the more complex cases, the syntax may have some thorns,
> Then it's not doing a good job of reducing complexity.  If it requires
> me to use quasiquote for stuff that contains neither unquote nor
> unquote-splicing (and has no sensible interpretation of unquote-splicing
> in connection with its own use of quasiquote anyway), it does a bad
> human interfacing job.  Why do I need to quote self-quoting expressions
> at all?  And why do self-quoting symbols differ in meaning when preceded
> by quasiquote?  In Lisp, `nil is equivalent to nil .  That's not what
> pcase sees, I think.

I find pcase quite readable; it's not going away. Honestly, I also found
the existing documentation completely adequate.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]