From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: cond* vs pcase
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 16:50:02 +0000
Message-ID: <87o7cttu4l.fsf@posteo.net>
References: <DU2PR02MB10109F1CBA5F7A8D78A597A5D96472@DU2PR02MB10109.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <E1rX1UK-0005Ip-Ff@fencepost.gnu.org> <87il32iwmm.fsf@posteo.net>
 <E1rXO89-0003Ll-3B@fencepost.gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="6714"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: arthur.miller@live.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 06 17:51:29 2024
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
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 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1rXOfO-0001Wa-PP
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:51:26 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>)
	id 1rXOeN-0008Eq-Aa; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 11:50:23 -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 <philipk@posteo.net>)
 id 1rXOeL-0008Ef-1q
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 11:50:21 -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 <philipk@posteo.net>)
 id 1rXOe6-00072K-VI
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 11:50:20 -0500
Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) 
 by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30AAE240101
 for <emacs-devel@gnu.org>; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 17:50:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017;
 t=1707238204; bh=whzRni8GvNtopMrhxQO5tf+TieW4z3fDZn4yAEm8rDM=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:OpenPGP:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
 Content-Type:From;
 b=lU3rtZkHfCJM1pMVL68u+RvIw4GufqIs2xgLBThSII3/Fnmus89ZkWX6xx+jMKIY/
 Bxi0ElPqTqYo5hl091te9Kwy9wxdY901cB9subV2P8un712j6kBng0MolgkvnNBtmb
 eLd8jTmRthkPa67NGFJIduKPP/cq824oFJXJ84Q3oh0J9wtIf0G0yuPflPvPpK6i/G
 K89zgTOopoVWfxtxojQ3RoUWKxiQfxuVVMRKO562GYMVprblF+0PhSlxUkwvb6Cdcl
 I2x989b95cOyhP9Z3HGARvVKl/awhz6MR//JMXyW6/XxLYyzYN44crxJQEX7xyTvrH
 FHzvNJ34T0kpQ==
Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4TTq3v2yW5z6twK;
 Tue,  6 Feb 2024 17:50:03 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <E1rXO89-0003Ll-3B@fencepost.gnu.org> (Alfred M. Szmidt's message
 of "Tue, 06 Feb 2024 11:17:05 -0500")
Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata=
 mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo
 aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0
 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI
 BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0
 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB
 BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE
 Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK
 NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof
 z4oM
OpenPGP: id=7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66;
 url="https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66";
 preference=signencrypt
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net;
 helo=mout02.posteo.de
X-Spam_score_int: -20
X-Spam_score: -2.1
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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_MSPIKE_H4=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." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:315933
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/315933>

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

>    "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
>
>    >    I use pcase often; but I use it just as a better cond. For example I find this
>    >    handy:
>    >
>    >    (defvar foo nil) <-- foo is some symbol
>    >
>    >    (pcase foo
>    >      ('bar (do-some-bar-stuff))
>    >      ('baz (do-some-baz-fluff)))
>    >
>    > cl-case seems more appropriate here (wish cl-case was just case ...)
>
>    Why more appropriate?
>
> 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.

>    I always think of pcase as Elisp's case.  In
>    addition, pcase avoids the danger of naively writing 
>
>       (cl-case foo
> 	('bar (do-some-bar-stuff))
> 	('baz (do-some-baz-fluff)))
>
>    and then getting surprised when foo evaluates to `quote'.
>
> Suprises will happy, you will get suprises with pcase and cond* too --
> I find it suprising that to match over symbols requires pattern
> matching.  One might also question why you (well, no you specifically)
> are comparing against (quote bar) etc?  That is a suprise in it self...

I don't understand your point here.  If one expects the cases to be
evaluated, then quoting makes sense if you want to match a symbol.  It
is not true, but common enough that the byte compiler emits a warning.

>    >    or this:
>    >
>    >    (setq foo "some-string")
>    >
>    >    (pcase foo
>    >      ("foo" (do-foo-case))
>    >      ("bar" (do-bar-case)))
>    >
>    > Same here, with (intern foo) ...
>
>    Being able to do equal instead of eql is also something that speaks in
>    favour of pcase...
>
> It speaks more in favor of having CASE where you can change the
> comparison operator or a CASE-STRING or similar, not something much
> more generic pcase (or even cond*!) -- i.e. why use pcase/cond* when
> you're not using any of the features that are the main point of those
> two macros.

I am sorry, but I don't follow your point here either.  Is the general
claim, that one should only use whatever exactly and at most satisfies
the needs at hand?