Re: Code for cond*

[Emanuel Berg]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> While I don't want to claim that `pcase' is perfect and
>> impossible to improve upon, I don't find
>> `cond*' convincing.
>
> Richard's point, and I agree with it, is that pcase is so
> far from perfect that it needs replacing.

Okay, I thought you guys had peaceful co-existence in mind.

If "cond*" is actually intended to push out and replace
`pcase', then that idea is just bizarre and I agree with
almost everyone else saying one shouldn't add "cond*".

Sorry, put it in GNU ELPA. I have a package there so I know it
is a very nice place actually.

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