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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:05:31 -0800
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> 
> >>>      (pcase skip
> >>>        (`nil nil)
> >>>        (`0 t)
> >>>        (_ (setq i (+ i skip -1)) (funcall get-next-frame)))))))
> >>
> >> (cond ((null skip))
> >>       ((eq skip 0) t)
> >>       (t (setq i (+ i skip -1)) 
> >>          (funcall get-next-frame)))
> >>
> >> Not much difference.
> > 
> > If skip is nil, the first returns probably nil and the second t.  One
> > could probably do
> > 
> > (and skip
> >      (or (eql skip 0)
> >          (setq ...)))
> > 
> > I'm not fond of eq for numeric comparisons: that's an Elispism.
> 
> That's true, but I think it's too pervasive to change now, so why fight it?

Who said anything about fighting?  I just asked if there was anything
there that I was missing.

Now that I know there isn't, I can convert such code to using 'cond'
whenever I feel like it.  Like we do with whitespace changes.

Thanks.