GNU bug report logs - #72328
[PATCH] Nested backquote in pcase

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Thuna <thuna.cing <at> gmail.com>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 72328 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#72328: [PATCH] Nested backquote in pcase
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 14:13:35 +0300

> From: Thuna <thuna.cing <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 72328 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 21:32:43 +0200
> 
> >> Note that I do not believe that there are no people who would be
> >> effected by this, positively or negatively.
> >
> > We've learned from bitter experience that such arguments are usually
> > false.  IOW, we don't really know enough to make such assertions.
> 
> I think there is a misunderstanding.  I am not saying that there isn't
> anyone who would be effected by this, it is the opposite.  I understand
> that this will effect people, and I agree that at minimum there needs to
> be a decent period where the current behavior is maintained but marked
> as obsolete.

How do you envision making such a behavior change in a way that will
leave the current behavior still maintained (and obsolete)?

> An indefinite feature-freeze is where I have a problem.

Disagreeing with a specific change is not tantamount to an indefinite
feature-freeze.  It is quite possible that someone will come up with a
different idea of a change, which we will be able to reconcile easier
with the previous behavior.

> >> (defun macroexp-null (exp)
> >>   "Return non-nil if EXP will always evaluate to nil.
> >> This form does not take non-local exits or side-effects into account."
> >>   (pcase exp
> >>     ((or 'nil ''nil '#'nil '`nil ``,,(pred macroexp-null))
> >>      t)))
> >> 
> >> which without this change would read as:
> >> 
> >> (defun macroexp-null (exp)
> >>   "Return non-nil if EXP will always evaluate to nil.
> >> This form does not take non-local exits or side-effects into account."
> >>   (pcase exp
> >>     ((or 'nil ''nil '#'nil '`nil
> >>          `(,'\` (,'\, ,(pred macroexp-null))))
> >>      t)))
> >
> > Thanks, now you just need to explain why you needed this code and what
> > did its caller do to require this.
> 
> I do not understand what you are asking for.  Whether `macroexp-null'
> should exist or not, what it is trying to do should be fairly clear, so
> should the way in which it benefits from the changed behavior.

I asked to explain _why_ you need this.  Risking to say the obvious, a
program exists to do some job, and a function like the above is
therefore part of some larger job.  We are asking you to describe the
higher-level context, which we could then use to try to decide whether
the need is important enough to justify the backward-incompatible
change.

> I also cannot provide any justification for this patch above and beyond
> what I have already mentioned in my initial message: This patch
> establishes a symmetry between pcase's backquote pattern and quasiquote,
> which allows trivially matching against the result of a quasiquote form.

We would like to hear reasons for wanting this.

> I would appreciate it if you would state your opinion on this patch,
> putting aside concerns of backwards compatibility for a moment.  I am
> working under the assumption that this is an improvement and is
> desirable, yet I have not yet heard from you or Stefan as to whether you
> see it that way or not.

I believe Stefan did say that.  Me, my only stake here is the concern
of backwards compatibility, which is why I'm talking only about that.

Thanks.

Previous Next

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