Re: [External] : Re: cond* vs pcase

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

   > Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> writes:
   >
   >> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
   >>
   >>>>    (pcase foo
   >>>>      ('bar (do-some-bar-stuff))
   >>>>      ('baz (do-some-baz-fluff)))
   >>>> 
   >>>> is not more awful or wonderful than:
   >>>> 
   >>>>    (cl-case foo
   >>>>      (bar (do-some-bar-stuff))
   >>>>      (baz (do-some-baz-fluff)))
   >
   > Sorry to interject, but this really suggests that `cl-case' should
   > become, simply, `case', in subr.el this time around...

That would be really nice (and maybe ecase, ccase as someone else
noted).

   Pcase in that case, thanks.

pcase does not convey the same intent as either case or ecase.  case
and ecase also have history, and are more familiar to people
programming Lisp (they are quite old, like many constructs -- so
suggestions like modifying cond outright should be disregarded point
blank).