[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pcase defuns
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: pcase defuns |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:18:33 -0500 |
[[[ 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. ]]]
> I agree that just implementing everything in a function is
> reasonable. For that, just using pcase seems good enough,
> although it might be interesting to have a very different way of
> writing a function such as
> (pcase-defun mytest
> "Demonstrates a way of writing defuns via pcase matching."
> ((a b _) "a b match")
> (`(c ,v _) (format "c %s match" v)))
This avoids the split-up-definition problems I was talking about,
since it is all in one place with one name.
Please make the defining form's name follow th convention of starting
with `def', so people and tools will recognize that it is a defining
form.
Also, why use `pcase' in the name? According to the docs of `pcase',
this pattern matching is not similar.
--
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)
Re: pcase defuns, Stefan Monnier, 2021/12/19
Re: pcase defuns, Stefan Monnier, 2021/12/21
Re: pcase defuns, Richard Stallman, 2021/12/19
Re: pcase defuns, Po Lu, 2021/12/22