Re: Update of pcase docs for the elisp manual

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> The alternatives you propose are longer, which makes it harder to produce
> palatable descriptions. And there's a long tradition of using them in Emacs.

> But I don't own the manual; if you want to get rid of those terms, go ahead
> and make the change.

I'll give it some more thought.

>> I still vote for "literal" and "logical", since a literal pattern matches
>> by literally being the same value as the input, while a logical pattern
>> matches due to the logic of the pattern.

> AFAIU, your division into logical and literal was different from the
> division between UPatterns and QPatterns. That's why I didn't use those
> terms.

Could you explain a bit more how they were different? Such variance was
intended.

>> How are they simpler?

> They are to me. They use undecorated symbols, and don't require the
> quote/unquote games. If that doesn't explain why they are simpler, then I
> don't know how to explain it, but the gut feeling is very real.

Ah, so they are syntactical simpler, but not semantically simpler. Hmm. Maybe
we should drop the statement about simplicity and just say we're presenting
UPatterns first.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2