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

[David Kastrup]

Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:

> On 01/03/2016 05:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>> The syntax of 'when' is nowhere as complex as that of 'pcase'.
>
> Obviously.
>
> But the given example uses a simple, small subset of pcase syntax. If
> you don't want to use even that, it seems to indicate that you're
> going to avoid the more complex uses of it even more so.

Uh what?  Whether pcase does not help with simple cases should have
little bearing on whether it helps with more complex cases.

> And thus, never use pcase at all.

If it does not help with simple cases, and it does not help with complex
cases, yes, that would be the obvious best choice.  I don't think that
this the argument you intend to make.

> Which doesn't seem like a good choice, from my perspective.

You are arguing as if we were paid for its use, not as if it had
inherent value.

Let it make its own case where it actually brings something to the
table.  We don't replace trivial cases of `if` with `cond`, `while` with
`cl-loop` and so on.

If we used constructs for the sake of using constructs, the code base
would show a lot more use of `cl-do` (which offers little savings in
return for its unreadability).

Let it speak for itself where it makes sense instead of everywhere.

-- 
David Kastrup