[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lexical let and setq

From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Subject: Re: Lexical let and setq
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:13:32 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> That one is OK, since recursion is not supported efficiently.
> The problem is when people use the above because they're writing (poor)
> C code in Elisp (e.g. they begin their functions with a big let
> declaring all the local vars that they may use later on in the
> function).

I think the most common reason for stashing a lot of variables in a let
is to avoid infinite indentation.

(let ((a (foo)))
  (let ((b (something-else)))
    (more a b)
    (let ((c (yet-more)))
      (zot a b c))))


(let ((a (foo))
      b c)
  (setq b (something-else))
  (more a b)
  (setq c (yet-more))
  (zot a b c))

I kinda think the latter form is sometimes more readable.  

(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   address@hidden * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]