Re: pcase bindings in patterns with complicated logic

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > (pcase '((foo . 1) (bar . 2) (baz . 3))
  >   ((and `((foo . 1) . ,_)
  >     (app (mapcar #'cdr) `(,_ ,_ ,c)))
  >    (format "Match: %S" c)))

  > The above matches `((foo . 1) . ,_) against '((foo . 1) (bar . 2) (baz . 3))
  > and then matches `(,_ ,_ ,c) against a different value - '(1 2 3)

One of the basic benefits of cond* is that you're not compelled to match
all the patterns against the same data object.

I am not confident I understand app pattern, but if it does what I now
think, the equivalent of (app (mapcar #'cdr) `(,_ ,_ ,c))) would be
this:

  (match* `(,_ ,_ ,c) (mapcar 'car  '((foo . 1) (bar . 2) (baz . 3))))

What cond* cannot do is apply `and' to two different match* clauses
which test different objects.  I could add that capability.  I could
also add `app', if that is worth adding.  Its absence is not a fundamental
design issue, just that it dud not seem necessary.

That example wan't a solution to a real problem, so I am not convinced
this is a real gap in cond*.  If I see this sort of situation in a
real problem, that will convince me I should do something about this.

Thanks for helping me understand this issue.

  
-- 
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)