[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Always using let*
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Always using let* |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:49:50 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
> But, quite often, I have several independent variable, except one or two.
> So, I would use "let" rather than "let*", but don't bind these variables
> and then use "setq" in the body of the let:
> (let ((a (val-for-a))
> (b (val-for-b))
> ...
> x y) ; depend on a b
> (setq x (val-for-x a b))
> (setq y (val-for-y a b))
> ...
In some cases, `setq' can't be easily avoided, but otherwise, I strongly
recommend let* over let+setq.
If it depended on me, I'd swap the two since in most cases you could use
let*, it's very rare to really need `let'.
Stefan
- RE: Always using let*, (continued)
- RE: Always using let*, Drew Adams, 2014/09/14
- RE: Always using let*, Drew Adams, 2014/09/15
- Message not available
- Re: Always using let*, Cecil Westerhof, 2014/09/15
- Re: Always using let*, Emanuel Berg, 2014/09/15
- Re: Always using let*, Cecil Westerhof, 2014/09/16
- Re: Always using let*, Emanuel Berg, 2014/09/16
- Re: Always using let*, Cecil Westerhof, 2014/09/18
- Re: Always using let*, Emanuel Berg, 2014/09/18
Message not available
- Re: Always using let*, sokobania . 01, 2014/09/16
- RE: Always using let*, Drew Adams, 2014/09/16
- Re: Always using let*,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Always using let*, Emanuel Berg, 2014/09/16
- Message not available
- Re: Always using let*, Emanuel Berg, 2014/09/16
- Re: Always using let*, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/16
- Re: Always using let*, Emanuel Berg, 2014/09/16
Re: Always using let*, Joe Fineman, 2014/09/14
Message not available
Message not available
Message not available