From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Stefan Monnier via "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: cond* vs pcase
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:39:45 -0500
Message-ID: <jwvjzn9cqq0.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
References: <SJ0PR10MB5488FBA45DA4AC634791B577F3462@SJ0PR10MB5488.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
 <822c332c-1a85-4454-8978-0b1491981058@alphapapa.net>
 <SJ0PR10MB5488EDAD5C20C8BA44A4A6B1F3462@SJ0PR10MB5488.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
 <DU2PR02MB10109826F4143098CB12BBA1D96452@DU2PR02MB10109.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <874jek5r0o.fsf@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="8916"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lUKTZTs3+p3znfNBRrZFdm2KtXI=
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 12 22:40:36 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 1rZe2V-00027z-KF
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:40:35 +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 1rZe1r-0003he-AP; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:39:55 -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 <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org>)
 id 1rZe1p-0003hW-PY
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:39:53 -0500
Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org>)
 id 1rZe1n-0003AV-Rm
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:39:53 -0500
Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org>) id 1rZe1l-00013m-Rw
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:39:49 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214;
 envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_bar: -
X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9,
 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no 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:316153
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/316153>

>>>>    (pcase foo
>>>>      ('bar (do-some-bar-stuff))
>>>>      ('baz (do-some-baz-fluff)))
>>>>
>>>> is not more awful or wonderful than:
>>>>
>>>>    (cl-case foo
>>>>      (bar (do-some-bar-stuff))
>>>>      (baz (do-some-baz-fluff)))
>
> Sorry to interject, but this really suggests that `cl-case' should
> become, simply, `case', in subr.el this time around...

No, on the contrary.  It just suggests that for this specific kind of
situations, either works about as well, so this is a use-case that would
not justify adding `pcase` if we already have `cl-case` (or `case`) and
it similarly would not justify adding `cl-case` (or `case`) if we
already have `pcase`.


        Stefan "who would have preferred to extend `(cl-)case` rather
                than introduce a new name, if it weren't for the fact
                that the `(cl-)case` syntax does not lend itself to such
                extensions"