bug#68029: 29.1; (elisp) `pcase Macro': misleading mention of `cl-case'

[Stefan Kangas]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> I find this comment misleading/incorrect:
>
>   With 'cl-case', you would need to explicitly declare a local variable
>   'code' to hold the return value of 'get-return-code'.  Also 'cl-case' is
>   difficult to use with strings because it uses 'eql' for comparison.
>
> In fact, with `cl-case' the code is at least as simple:
>
> (let* ((val (get-return-code x)))
>   (if (stringp val)  (message val)
>     (cl-case val
>       (success       (message "Done!"))
>       (would-block   (message "Sorry, can't do it now"))
>       (read-only     (message "The shmliblick is read-only"))
>       (access-denied (message "You do not have the needed rights"))
>       (val           (message "You do not have the needed rights")))))
>
> Yes, it's true that comparison is with `eql', so for a string value you
> need to test that separately (or intern and then test symbols with
> `cl-case').  But there's no need to use any `code' variable.

This shows that you do need to use a `code' variable (you named it `val'
though), and that the pcase version is indeed better.

> If you can't come up with a better example to show advantages of `pcase'
> over `cl-case' (and that should be easy to do), then don't say anything
> about `cl-case'.  Or maybe just tell the truth: `cl-case' handles _one
> simple `pcase' use case_ in a simpler way.  IOW, if you're just testing
> equality of the expression's value against particular symbols then
> `cl-case' is simpler and clearer.

No, the reality is that `pcase' has *many* advantages over `cl-case'.
The example is just intended to showcase some of them.

> Even clearer is just this (same for the `pcase' example):
>
> (message
>  (let* ((val (get-return-code x)))
>    (if (stringp val) val
>      (cl-case val
>        (success       "Done!")
>        (would-block   "Sorry, can't do it now")
>        (read-only     "The shmliblick is read-only")
>        (access-denied "You do not have the needed rights")
>        (val           "You do not have the needed rights")))))

I'm not sure that's indeed easier for a beginner ELisp developer to
follow.  So I don't think it's worth making that change.

> (And you've presumably misspelled schmilblick ;-):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmilblick)

I don't follow, sorry.

So I'm closing this bug report.