Re: Code for cond*

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Kangas wrote:

> If it does _not_ come with such a plan, it's slightly
> better. But then that begs the question: why add it?

We add it so we can move on, everyone is happy to have their
own thing, be it "cond*", `cl-lib', `pcase' or whatever, and
then everyone can move on and let this issue rest.

I'm not saying that makes sense necessarily from all angles of
the problem, just saying that would be the positive effect it
would have.

If people help with feedback to polish cond* to perfection I'm
sure it is an interesting piece of software.

Let's do that first, maybe?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal