Re: What does "lacks a prefix" mean?

[Emanuel Berg]

Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> Ive sometimes wished for a let-variant that does the
> duty of both let and let* eg.

> (let (((x 1) (y 2))
>       ((z (foo x y))))
>   body...)
>
> This kind of let would cost one paren more than the usual let.
> But could make dependencies explicit without
> overspecifying

let* already does what let does.

Dependencies aren't explicit anywhere: the only thing
let* does is saying there CAN be dependencies.
Because this is almost a worthless "red flag" that
carries minimal information, I'd say I'd use let all
the time if let was "let*".

The only reason for the distinction is if computation
was made in parallel, then let could allow that and
let* wouldn't.

However, if that was possible without OH to eat the
gain I would like a much more powerful construct than
let*, one which exactly identified what is dependent
on what.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573