RE: The poor state of documentation of pcase like things.

[Drew Adams]

> I'll try to take care of that stuff.
> 
> After all, despite of the tone on both sides, I think we came to
> some conclusions:
> 
>   - The pcase docs must be updated, esp. wrt quoting/ backquote, and
>   missing stuff (e.g. first matching branches' body is executed,
>   remaining branches are ignored).
> 
>   - We should not use it in cases where a different thing (esp. cl-case)
>   exactly fits.  "Promoters" should use it sparse in contributions and
>   only in cases where it improves readability or makes the case
>   distinction clearer (given the reader read the documentation).  Others
>   should accept that some people find it handy and will use it in such
>   cases in their contributions.
> 
>   - Occurrences in the sources must be revised.
> 
> The only substantial difference, I think, was whether the design and
> concept of pcase is useful.  I think it's ok when people have different
> preferences here (like with `loop', which I personally avoid btw).
> 
> Thanks everyone, Michael.

A very constructive contribution to the discussion, IMO.

Thanks for taking a stab at the doc improvement.  That will be
a great help, including in terms of guiding our use of `pcase'.

And thanks for the consensus summary - sounds good to me.