On 01/03/2016 06:07 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Dmitry Gutov <[email protected]> writes: > >> On 01/03/2016 11:02 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> Uh what? Whether pcase does not help with simple cases should have >>> little bearing on whether it helps with more complex cases. >> >> But it does. It takes less code, > > You mean, less input.
A side effect of a more expressive system. >> and follows the common design of pattern matching, which isn't hard to >> understand and internalize. > > And yet Emacs has more than just regexp operations for dealing with > strings, and most string operations are carried out without reverting to > regexps. > >> In the more complex cases, the syntax may have some thorns, > > Then it's not doing a good job of reducing complexity. If it requires > me to use quasiquote for stuff that contains neither unquote nor > unquote-splicing (and has no sensible interpretation of unquote-splicing > in connection with its own use of quasiquote anyway), it does a bad > human interfacing job. Why do I need to quote self-quoting expressions > at all? And why do self-quoting symbols differ in meaning when preceded > by quasiquote? In Lisp, `nil is equivalent to nil . That's not what > pcase sees, I think. I find pcase quite readable; it's not going away. Honestly, I also found the existing documentation completely adequate.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
