On 8/4/21 7:06 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I don't think we should try and combine them: it's not worth the
> code complexity.  Personally I'd even restrict the calling convention to
> (pcase-setq PAT VAL), but if you want to accept the more general case
> with multiple PAT+VAL, I'd prefer expanding it to a (progn (pcase-setq
> PAT1 VAL1) ...).  I think the resulting code would be simpler/cleaner.

Done.

>> +@defmac pcase-setq pattern value@dots{}
>> +Bind variables to values in a @code{setq} form, destructuring each
>> +@var{value} according to its respective @var{pattern}.
>> +@end defmac
>
> I prefer keeping "bind" for the case where we create new variables
> (i.e. let-bindings) rather than for assignments.

This was changed to the phrase "assign values to variables".

>
> Looks good.  But could you add a few corresponding tests to
> `test/lisp/emacs-lisp/pcase-tests.el`, including tests for things like
>
>      (pcase-setq `(,a ,b) nil)

Added with others. Do you think that the added tests are sufficient?

Thank you.