Re: pcase-if-let?

[Michael Heerdegen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> FWIW, I'm a bit worried about this case: it's not like this pcase-if
> is a "pcase version of some existing construct", so if we ever want to
> get rid of the "pcase-" prefix on it, we'll have to invent a new name
> for it.

True.  But "pif" sounds too funny...we need to find a different name.

> PS: Regarding the "unorthodox" shape of the pcase construct, you could
> generate an expression of the form (pcase (list E1 E2 ...) ((list P1 P2
> ...) THEN) (_ ELSE)).

What's `list' - a new pattern type?  If you write it like this, it looks
like parallel matching of the Pi patterns, though we need to match in
order for i=1,...


Michael.