Re: Code for cond*

[Emanuel Berg]

Po Lu wrote:

>> What you can say is "Hey, we have something interesting
>> here, take a look, hopefully it will gain traction if
>> people are appealed by it".
>>
>> But you are not saying that because you yourself are not
>> confident cond* really has any such advantages over `pcase'
>> to motivate anything close to this kind of
>> confrontational approach.
>
> I can't so much as understand pcase forms, let alone debate
> the fine technical details that certain participants in this
> thread insist demonstrate the superiority of pcase over
> cond*.

It can be and is sometimes pretty unclear but it is clear
enough that cond* is not superior to `pcase' in any way that
even remotely motivates this kind of confrontational attitude.

To propose pcase should be replaced by it is bizarre at
this point.

> But if you read my words carefully, it will be apparent that
> all I have asked is that people refrain from contriving
> reasons to exclude cond* from Emacs. Richard already made up
> his mind [...]

To include cond*, or to have a grandiose plan to have it
replace pcase?

Because those are two different things. If the plan is to kick
out pcase I'm sure there is a plan to kick out cl-lib as well,
since the last time we heard about this, what we first heard
wasn't of pcase, but cl-lib.

Only when it become clear almost no one in the Emacs community
was in favor of kicking out cl-lib the focus switched
to pcase.

Hey, include whatever you want and let it play out anyway it
happens. But grandiose politics with tailored software and PR
campaigns to support it - no thanks.

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