Subject: Re: bug#57502: 29.0.50; Issue with `or' clause of buffer-match-p

From: Philip Kaludercic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2022 11:19:55 +0000

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> From: Philip Kaludercic <[email-masked]>
>> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2022 11:04:20 +0000
>> 
>> Are there any objections against applying this change?  From what I see
>> pcase is used elsewhere in seq, so it should be possible to recognise
>> and expand the macro, right?
>
> I think we should avoid using pcase in subr.el, since subr.el is
> loaded by loadup.el before pcase.  But I see that this ship has sailed
> already, sigh.

There is no insistence from my end to use pcase, especially because at
first I assumed it ought not to be used in subr.el.  But from what I see
there have been instances of the macro (in `called-interactively-p') for
almost ten years now.  So unless there is a plan to revert this trend,
I'd use pcase to avoid simple issues like the one that caused this bug.