Re: pcase-if-let?

[Michael Heerdegen]

Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:

> > 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.

An important difference is also that it is not the canonical `pcase'
counterpart of something existing (as Stefan mentioned), which is why I
dropped the "pcase" suffix.

> 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"?

As we want to drop the "pcase" suffix in this case, shouldn't the name
tell that this is about matching?  Else, "all" is IMHO meaningless.
OTOH adding "all" to the name would be ok for me, since it's not obvious
how the clauses are logically combined.


Michael.