Chunyang Xu <xuchunyang.me@gmail.com> writes:

> It looks like, to me, the structure of the BODY arg of these two should
> be the same (accepting a list froms).
>
> (pcase-let ((a 1))
>   (incf a)
>   a)
>      => 2
>
> (pcase-let* ((a 1))
>   (incf a)
>   a)
>      => 2

It appears to be so. Here's what I did:

(pcase-let* ((a 1)
	     (b 2))
  (message "%d" a)
  (message "%d" b))

and ended up with

1
2

in my *Messages* buffer.

> but the docstrings are using the different words.
>
> (pcase-let BINDINGS &rest BODY)
>
> Like `let' but where you can use `pcase' patterns for bindings.
> BODY should be a list of expressions, and BINDINGS should be a list of bindings
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the form (PAT EXP).
>
> (pcase-let* BINDINGS &rest BODY)
>
> Like `let*' but where you can use `pcase' patterns for bindings.
> BODY should be an expression, and BINDINGS should be a list of bindings
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the form (PAT EXP).

This patch changes the pcase-let* docstring to match the pcase-let
docstring, but IMO I don't think that the phrase 'a list of expressions'
is exactly the right term for this. That (to me) implies that we are
wrapping the whole body in a list, which you don't.

For example -

; What that phrase implies to me:
(pcase-let ((a 1))
  ((incf a)
   a))

But I have no idea how to better phrase this. For certain, though, they
ought to match because they both behave the same way.

-----