[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Lexical let and setq

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: Lexical let and setq
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 01:11:38 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

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

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

> vs

> (let ((a (foo))
>       b c)
>   (something)
>   (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.  

In SML (where `setq' is not an option), the natural way to write it is
equivalent to:

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

-- Stefan

reply via email to

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