bug#24362: 25.1.50; Inconsistent docstring between pcase-let and pcase-let*

[Robert Cochran <robert-emacs@cochranmail.com>]

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:

> Robert Cochran <robert-emacs@cochranmail.com> writes:
>
>> This patch changes the pcase-let* docstring to match the pcase-let
>> docstring, but IMO I don't think that the phrase 'a list of
>> expressions' is exactly the right term for this. That (to me) implies
>> that we are wrapping the whole body in a list, which you don't.
>
> Isn't this just normal "Elisp speak" for a &rest parameter?  Sure, the
> value of the parameter doesn't appear in the code (only "spliced in") -
> but we use this wording all the time.

It may very well be. I haven't been around long enough to know. Now,
don't get me wrong, I *knew* what 'a list of expressions' had to mean in
context (it wouldn't have worked any other way), but my natural parsing
still evokes the wrong idea in my mind. If it's already established
tradition, then I have no qualms.

>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el
>> index 0b8dddf..2d61642 100644
>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el
>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase.el
>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ pcase--let*
>>  ;;;###autoload
>>  (defmacro pcase-let* (bindings &rest body)
>>    "Like `let*' but where you can use `pcase' patterns for bindings.
>> -BODY should be an expression, and BINDINGS should be a list of bindings
>> +BODY should be a list of expressions, and BINDINGS should be a list of bindings
>
> Looks ok to me.

Thanks! Not that there's much to do wrong there. ;)

-- 
~Robert Cochran

GPG Fingerprint - E778 2DD4 FEA6 6A68 6F26  AD2D E5C3 EB36 4886 8871