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

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.

Excellent summary and resolution, I agree. We can continue debate on
emacs-tangents, but this is resolved now from emacs-devel's point of view.
Michael and I will produce new documentation shortly.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2