Re: Instead of pcase

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 19/11/2023 23:15, Barry Fishman wrote:

> > Haskell is notable for using the same (or similar) syntax for
> > destructuring as it uses for constructing expressions.
> >
> > pcase actually follows that practice with backquotes and commas.
>
> Really?  I thought back-quoting was used (as an alternative way) to
> construct nested lists, to express more simply the piecing together and
> concatenating nested list pieces, particularly in macroes, and its
> expansion at compile time is fairly obvious.
>
> I guess what pcase is trying to do is the similar,

The reverse, to be more exact.

> but it is expressing
> something that, to me, seem far more complex to use.

I don't blame you, FWIW. But I've yet to see a "simpler" solution which 
would provide comparable functionality.

> Its also mixing "destructuring" and "guard"s, all in one "super" domain
> specific language.
>
> Like loop, it can be powerful, but intimidating to people that don't use
> it a lot.  But its usefulness to those that know it, encourages its
> use in the code base.
>
> But exiting Lisp destructuring via destructuring-bind and lambda
> arguments, don't use backquoting.
They also don't provide any pattern matching of case-like functionality.

When you don't need a way to distinguish literals from variables, 
(un)quoting is indeed not needed.

> One thing I did change was to reverse the defmethod style of (variable
> type) to (type variable) to try to simplify recursion in the typeproto
> syntax.
>
> > And in both matching and destructuring are done in the same expression
> > (the presence of the latter is determined by whether a pattern
> > contains variable bindindgs).
> >
> > > If x is a list with its first element a string "foo" and the second an
> > > integer, remove it from x and add the second element to total:
> > >     (proto-case x
> > >       ((list* (string name) (integer count) (t rest))
> > >        (string-equal name "foo")
> > >        (set! total (+ total count))
> > >        (set! x rest)))
> > > This is just one of many other ways one could setup a matching
> > > expression in elisp, the best is a balance between implementation
> > > efficiency and readability.
> >
> > And this divorces matching from destructuring. I suggest you try
> > rewriting one of the more complex pcase usages into this syntax and
> > see what people think of the result.
>
> You want me to guess what you have in mind?  I have no idea.

I meant that you could try to take an example of a complex usage of 
pcase (one that seemed complex to you), some big expression or at least 
one that exhibits most of pcase's functionalities, and try rewriting it 
using an alternative syntax. And then judge for yourself, and then maybe 
poll others, which solution looks more readable and easier to understand.

> I'll take the example pcase code from the Emacs manual:
>
> (pcase (get-return-code x)
>    ;; string
>    ((and (pred stringp) msg)
>          (message "%s" msg))
>    ;; symbol
>    ('success       (message "Done!"))
>    ('would-block   (message "Sorry, can't do it now"))
>    ('read-only     (message "The shmliblick is read-only"))
>    ('access-denied (message "You do not have the needed rights"))
>    ;; default
>    (code           (message "Unknown return code %S" code)))
>
> This is a simple use case, so its hard to use to draw any conclusions.
>
> This is mostly value handling for a known type, which is to me a
> different problem than destructuring, and be handled better by a
> generalized value case structure.  But still:
>
> (let ((msglist
>          '((success       . "Done!")
>            (would-block   . "Sorry, can't do it now")
>            (read-only     . "The shmliblick is read-only")
>            (access-denied . "You do not have the needed rights"))))
>    (proto-case (get-return-code x)
>      ((string msg) t (message "%s" msg))
>      ((symbol sym) t (let ((pair (assq sym msglist)))
>                        (if pair
>                          (message (cdr pair))
>                          (message "Unknown return symbol %S" sym))))
>      ((t code)     t (message "Unknown return type %S" code))))
>
> In this situation pcase situation is a slightly better, to my
> sensibility's. [Now that pcase is written]

Indeed, I don't see an improvement either. I'd say it looks worse 
because of the slight increase in verbosity, but they're close enough.

That's why I suggested picking some relatively complex example to 
rewrite: more potential to show a difference.