[alexandria-devel] [PATCH] Added Scheme's LET as LET@

[Pierre Thierry]

Scribit Nikodemus Siivola dies 26/01/2013 hora 16:21:
> I'm OK with a named-let in principle, I think. Maybe. But I'm
> dead-set against calling it let at .

The thing is, if you want to code with a scheme style, you'll use
named lets very often, so it ought to have a rather short name. Why
the issue with let@, for my curiosity's sake? (for me, @ looks a lot
like a spiral or something like an ongoing loop)

> (Most of the time when I see code written with named let I want to
> rewrite it into something more readable, but I'm willing to believe
> that it doesn't have to be always bad...)

Ever since I understood recursion, I've always found this way more
readable than anything else, to what would you usually rewrite a named
let?

Curiously,
Pierre
-- 
pierre at nothos.net
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/alexandria-devel/attachments/20130127/44a2c344/attachment.sig>