[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: pcase-if-let?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: pcase-if-let? |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Mar 2018 21:07:24 -0700 (PDT) |
> I call it `if-matching' for now (like in "if [given clauses are]
> matching [do this else that]").
IIUC (?), what distinguishes this from other pcase* stuff
is that this one is about matching ALL of a set of clauses.
It's not that this one is about matching and the others
are not. (And this one is a form of "if".)
That's why I suggested something like:
`if-all-match' (or even just `if-all')
Am I wrong that what is important here are "if" and "all",
not "matching"?
- Re: pcase-if-let?, (continued)
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Davis Herring, 2018/03/28
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/28
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/28
- RE: pcase-if-let?, Drew Adams, 2018/03/29
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/29
- RE: pcase-if-let?, Drew Adams, 2018/03/29
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Stefan Monnier, 2018/03/29
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/29
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Stefan Monnier, 2018/03/29
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/29
- RE: pcase-if-let?,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/30
- RE: pcase-if-let?, Drew Adams, 2018/03/30
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/30