Re: cond* vs pcase

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    > Because your not doing pattern matching, you're comparing against a
>    > set of strings/symbols/numbers/....
>
>    Simply because pattern matching is a more powerful generalisation,
>    capable of expressing case-distinction; in the end it compiles down to
>    almost the same code anyway.
>
> Are you suggesting that COND/CASE/... and other "trivial" matching
> constructs should be replaced with PCASE/COND*?

No, just that using pcase in these cases isn't wrong.

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> Simply because [1] pattern matching is a more
>> powerful generalisation, capable of expressing
>> case-distinction; [2] in the end it compiles
>> down to almost the same code anyway.
>
> Wow.  Really _not_ a good reason (IMHO).
> Neither of those reasons [1,2] is good.
>
> With that reasoning you'll use `pcase'
> _always and everywhere_ - never `if',
> `cond', `let', `or', `and',...

Please don't be dishonest; My question was why cl-case was more
appropriate than pcase, where both are macros that boil down to simpler
primitives.  I don't see an inherent advantage to using the more
specific abstraction over the more generic one.  I like pcase, and
prefer using it in my code, but if you've got some code that is already
using a lot of cl-lib and no pcase, then there is no point in transiting
cl-case forms into pcase.

>
> Hey, `pcase' can do it all!  And it
> compiles down to almost the same thing!
>
> "Demain on rase gratis !"