From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: cond* Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2024 14:33:51 +0000 Message-ID: <871qauy1io.fsf@localhost> References: <87frzuae9n.fsf@posteo.net> <871qbatqc8.fsf@posteo.net> <87wmsz7lzn.fsf@posteo.net> <87edf1m7lq.fsf@localhost> <87cyui76l9.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15369"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 06 15:31:02 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rM7hV-0003q4-WD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 15:31:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rM7hM-0002GU-D2; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 09:30:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rM7hE-0002Cx-J1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 09:30:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rM7hC-0001IX-QK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2024 09:30:44 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1364240103 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2024 15:30:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1704551438; bh=SPabrYkPA+k2HzDF/ir8+st+h0f5xujAZxfYhl4tNoo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Transfer-Encoding:From; b=EoxNWY50yRvbUDiQerSjlf/kGAZQKQrTbcjRQ59yF5c8H2TBQ2P2ePZRPjRa/yOYd VX616MVwJSvQihx/SEXn5VgtelgQ7XqTYmFQlvw8DvKBEClMIJvqPhbru7OiPDGJW5 CLHUwITf8PAa8uHOKtrj3QH/SR6DiQw1/kocV+qJ8mDn3JDNSWT3xClXRImBrb1qoR RjkoygEW6U5vRgRfF77iaPnGjdXHm7r2xMrPllVjWvpT9Wjf+fiTbC6q8dw4EtE9+i YHWMrbw/cIv6It+J+ONmTNWCbU5+GvpceAt+GaTGz9l8er7RToMB/jaxbUvTWJruLl P4wDjgYHp88rw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4T6jRL02pLz9rxB; Sat, 6 Jan 2024 15:30:37 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:314632 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > I was referring to what "pred" in `pcase' does: > > > =E2=80=98(pred FUNCTION)=E2=80=99 > > Matches if the predicate FUNCTION returns non-=E2=80=98nil=E2=80= =99 when called on > > EXPVAL. The test can be negated with the syntax =E2=80=98(pred = (not > > FUNCTION))=E2=80=99. The predicate FUNCTION can have one of the= following > > forms: > > Ok. Given that for comparison, what conclusion or suggestion to you > offer about cond*? >From my reading of your latest spec of the cond*, I feel that it is getting closer and closer to the features provided by `pcase'. The description is also getting closer to pcase manual page length. Since cond* is aiming to produce "simpler" syntax compared to pcase, I feel that the concise style of pcase may either be avoided or considered carefully. In particular, I believe that (PRED ...) in conf* is no less confusing than (pred ...) that pcase provides. IMHO, the recursive (PRED1 (PRED2 ...) ...) is more confusing compared to what pcase offers. --=20 Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at