[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: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: The poor state of documentation of pcase like things.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:49:45 -0800 (PST)

> cl-case is more restricted, yes, but I thought this discussion was about
> how pcase is worse than cond.

I don't think so.  To me, this discussion is about whether to use `pcase':

* Only when it really offers something,
* All the time, everywhere,
* Or something in between (what?).

> > I kinda liked pcase at first, but the more I see of the pcase language,
> > the more sceptical I get.  I'm beginning to wonder whether the whole
> > thing is a misfeature that should be replaced with several separate
> > operators.
> You mean pattern matching? A lot of language and library designers would
> disagree with you.

Decomposition pattern-matching.  Use it when it helps.

Literal "pattern" matching does not require `pcase'.  Should
`pcase' be used for such mundane cases anyway, since it can be?

That's the question that I think is being discussed.  Whether
wholesale replacement of `cond', `case', `if', etc. by `pcase'
is a good idea, just because it could do the job.

reply via email to

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