Re: [External] : Re: cond*

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > Note that this change in rules would make no change
  > > in the interpretation of a final clause that starts with t.

  > Yes, and that's a source of confusion.

That makes no sense.  There is no possible confusion there.

Non-final clauses in cond never start with t,
so no one will expect tham to do anything other than
what this definition says.

So I think you are concerned about a non-problem.  Compared with all
the complexity people have to get used to in pcase, this is almost
nothing.

  > You'd have this:

  > ((:match ...) CONDITION . ACTIONS)

This syntax is not coherent and won't be an improvement.
It does not make sense to attach  a fall-through clause
to the following clause.  The fall-through clause's bindings
affect all the rest of the cond*, NOT just the following clause.

Getting used to a special meaning for t as the first element of a
cond* clause will be EASIER than getting used to a special meaning for
(:match ...) there.


So I will not accept that suggestion.  It creates a problem
where currentlly there is none.

I've decided no to use keywords in cond* any more.  You've put the
keywod :match that cond* previous used together with the syntax I've
adopted for the newer replacement, which is match*.  That combination
is not coherent.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)