[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: |
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:07:17 -0700 (PDT) |
> > 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"?
(I meant as compared with the others, as mentioned just above.)
> 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.
Yes. Although even a name prefixed with "pcase" also says
nothing about matching.
`if-all-match' is what I suggested and would still suggest.
But there are no doubt other good possibilities.
- Re: pcase-if-let?, (continued)
- 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, 2018/03/30
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/30
- RE: pcase-if-let?,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: pcase-if-let?, Michael Heerdegen, 2018/03/30