Re: emacs-29 4c6653f23ae: ; * lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el (pcase-let*, pcase-let): Doc fix.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:44:13 +0100
> 
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:44:36 -0500 (EST) Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > branch: emacs-29
> > commit 4c6653f23aef097e3a6ed687e21decea6c790b5e
> > Author: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> > Commit: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> >
> >     ; * lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el (pcase-let*, pcase-let): Doc fix.
> > ---
> >  lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el
> > index 47db2b89b9e..692c8f9b3fe 100644
> > --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el
> > +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ As with `pcase-let', BINDINGS are of the form (PATTERN 
> > EXP), but the
> >  EXP in each binding in BINDINGS can use the results of the destructuring
> >  bindings that precede it in BINDINGS' order.
> >
> > -Each EXP should match (i.e. be of compatible structure) to its
> > +Each EXP should match (i.e. be of compatible structure) its
> >  respective PATTERN; a mismatch may signal an error or may go
> >  undetected, binding variables to arbitrary values, such as nil."
> >    (declare (indent 1)
> > @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ All EXPs are evaluated first, and then used to perform 
> > destructuring
> >  bindings by matching each EXP against its respective PATTERN.  Then
> >  BODY is evaluated with those bindings in effect.
> >
> > -Each EXP should match (i.e. be of compatible structure) to its
> > +Each EXP should match (i.e. be of compatible structure) its
> >  respective PATTERN; a mismatch may signal an error or may go
> >  undetected, binding variables to arbitrary values, such as nil."
> >    (declare (indent 1) (debug pcase-let*))
> 
> "Each EXP should match (i.e. be of compatible structure) its respective
> PATTERN" is still a solecism;

You are welcome.

> correct English would be "Each EXP should
> match (i.e., be of compatible structure to) its respective PATTERN".  An
> alternative, and perhaps more fluid, formulation is "Each EXP should
> match its respective PATTERN (i.e., be of compatible structure to it)".

Thanks, fixed.