Re: Another pcase-lambda

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 13:03:03 +0200 Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden> wrote: 

MH> Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 10:29:53 -0400 Stefan Monnier
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
SM> There a "case" to be made that all variable bindings should
SM> support the pcase syntax (i.e. dolist should be pcase-dolist, let
SM> should be pcase-let, ...).
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing.

MH> AFAIU the proposal is to make any construct that receives variable
MH> bindings implicitly act like the `pcase' variant, i.e. `lambda' would
MH> become equivalent to `pcase-lambda' (which would become obsolete) etc.

That sounds good for people who use `pcase'. Does it have the potential
to create confusion or bugs (including performance issues) for the rest?
If yes, can it be optional for some time?

Outside of those concerns, I think it's a great idea and would use it.

Ted