GNU bug report logs - #31350
27.0; `pcase' message: "Redundant pcase pattern"

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 31350 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#31350: 27.0; `pcase' message: "Redundant pcase pattern"
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 19:06:46 -0700 (PDT)

> > I'll repeat the request, which is what I think a user
> > would like to know:
> >
> >   Can the messaging at least tell you:
> >   (1) all of a set of clauses that are mutually redundant and
> >   (2) which one of them will actually be used by the compiled
> >       code, the others presumably having been pruned?
> >
> > IOW, what's the actual effect, for users?  How does pcase
> > deal with the redundancy?  Can that at least be documented
> > somewhere (maybe it is already)?
> 
> I think you make an error in reasoning: we don't have mutual redundancy
> here.  A case can be redundant when it will never match because whenever
> would match, a previous case in the cases list always matches, so it is
> effectively shadowed.  But this is not symmetric (cases are always tried
> from first to last (!), and e.g. a `_' catchall pattern in one case will
> make all following cases redundant, but not the other way round).
> 
> I think the message is more like a warning that a case can never match,
> and in all cases where this happened to me, as also in your case, the
> reason was a very obvious editing mistake.  I don't think there is much
> to say here, Emacs just tells you: this case here will never be used,
> look what you have done wrong.  There is a problem with your code
> whenever you see that message.  And there is nothing to say about the
> semantics as well.
> 
> BTW, I think the implementation only covers the most obvious and
> simplistic cases, like those involving catchall patterns or duplicated
> patterns.

If what you say is the case then the help should tell
users that.  To me it's not obvious.

And even if a user (somehow) understands that later
cases are made redundant by earlier ones, how to tell
which earlier ones are implicated?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.