Re: encode-time vs decode-time

[Paul Eggert]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I think neither "broken down time" nor "tm" are significantly less
> bad than "decoded-time", so I don't think it's worth changing the term
> we've been using.

I'm starting to come around to the same feeling.

> So maybe we should stop documenting "decoded time" objects as being of
> the form (SEC MINUTE HOUR DAY MONTH YEAR DOW DST UTCOFF SUBSEC), but
> instead say that it's a `decoded-time` object on which you can use
> the `decoded-time-*` accessors (and provide a corresponding pcase pattern
> to replace the `(,sec ,minute ...) one).

That sounds like a reasonable way to move forward.

I'm not a pcase expert. How would one go about doing the pcase stuff? That is, 
how does one provide a pattern so that code like (pcase time ((decoded-time 
:year y :month m) (some-expr-involving y & m))) can extract the year and month 
components Y and M from the broken-down time TIME that was created via 
(make-decoded-time :year y :month m)? Is there an example of doing this sort of 
thing somewhere?