I understand your point, and I don't disagree, but I do see another viewpoint that also makes sense to me: that the misunderstanding is not in the place that is being discussed. (In other words, that this is largely an issue of mis-communication.) 

The particular point that *I think* was being expressed but not effectively communicated is this:

The example was cited as a place where pcase's use of special syntax lead to confusion, but this the example doesn't use any special pcase syntax. This doesn't remove the problem, but if it's correct, then it suggests that the problem is perhaps more accurately described as "pcase makes some experienced Lisp programmers so unsure about special syntax that they worry it might be present where it is not". This could be a general problem with any programming language, but is perhaps especially relevant to Lisp.

Coming back to the particular potential disagreement:

> I explained why I found it hard to understand that example.
>
> Your response to my explanation is to argue with it.

I *suspect* that the "argument* you see is not an attempt to tell you that your explanation is wrong, but rather to suggest that the misunderstanding might not be where you thought it was. (You are certainly correct that the example was hard for you to understand, but you may or may not be correct about the reasons.)

I hope that helps,

~Chad