Re: Clarify `pcase' `rx' pattern doc

[Michael Heerdegen]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> Could you please elaborate on what you didn't like or found confusing
> in the original text, and why?  Then perhaps I could suggest how to
> modify the text to satisfy us both.  OK?

As I said - the second arg of `let' in the `rx' pattern is of the same
type as the argument of `rx' - a formal regexp.  But because it is named
differently ("FORM"), I assumed it would be something different - and
because it is named form, I thought, well, it should be a form.

So there are two things: (1) the arguments of the `rx' macro, the `rx'
pcase macro, and the first arg of the `let' subpattern in `rx' should
have the same name, and (2) we need to go away from the argument name
"REGEXP" since we agree that it's a confusing name, but it's used in
many places, the `rx' macro among them.


Michael.