Re: Update of pcase docs for the elisp manual

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com>
> Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:35:37 -0800
> 
> >> I still vote for "literal" and "logical", since a literal pattern matches
> >> by literally being the same value as the input, while a logical pattern
> >> matches due to the logic of the pattern.
> 
> > AFAIU, your division into logical and literal was different from the
> > division between UPatterns and QPatterns. That's why I didn't use those
> > terms.
> 
> Could you explain a bit more how they were different? Such variance was
> intended.

Sorry, I didn't keep your text after I finished working on this.  If
you send it to me again, I will try to explain.

> >> How are they simpler?
> 
> > They are to me. They use undecorated symbols, and don't require the
> > quote/unquote games. If that doesn't explain why they are simpler, then I
> > don't know how to explain it, but the gut feeling is very real.
> 
> Ah, so they are syntactical simpler, but not semantically simpler.

No, they are also semantically different: they allow more generalized
matching rules.

> Hmm. Maybe we should drop the statement about simplicity and just
> say we're presenting UPatterns first.

Like I said: I don't own the manual...

I do wonder why these minor nits trigger such a large portion of the
comments.  They are there to make the text easier to read, so it isn't
too dry.  If people dislike that style, it's fine with me to delete
those parts, but what about "the meat"?  Did I succeed to write
something that can be studied and learned from?