On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Leo Liu <sdl.web@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2014-09-09 22:26 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I suggested `pcase-exhaustive'.
> You suggested `xcase', which I don't like for namespace reasons.

Would `pcasex' be acceptable? I used xcase because I cannot come up with
a good enough short name, and a long name for such a fundamental macro
can be annoying.

How is the special case of erroring upon failure to match a "fundamental macro"?

If this needs to exist then Stefan's suggestion of `pcase-exhaustive' or some other

descriptive name seems like the way to go, but just appending "x" for the sake of

brevity seems like a bad idea. Clarity is more important.