RE: pcase-if-let?

[Drew Adams]

> > It's not that this one is about matching and the others
> > are not.  (And this one is a form of "if".)
> >
> > That's why I suggested something like:
> >
> >   `if-all-match' (or even just `if-all')
> >
> > Am I wrong that what is important here are "if" and "all",
> > not "matching"?

(I meant as compared with the others, as mentioned just above.)

> As we want to drop the "pcase" suffix in this case, shouldn't the name
> tell that this is about matching?  Else, "all" is IMHO meaningless.
> OTOH adding "all" to the name would be ok for me, since it's not obvious
> how the clauses are logically combined.

Yes.  Although even a name prefixed with "pcase" also says
nothing about matching.

`if-all-match' is what I suggested and would still suggest.
But there are no doubt other good possibilities.