[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Always using let*
From: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: Always using let* |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:45:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
sokobania.01@gmail.com writes:
> If I have several variables with "enough" binding
> dependency, I use "let*".
>
> 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)) ...
> )
Why not use the let* for everything? Or nest a the let*
and let - perhaps overkill... Because I don't see
anything wrong with "independent variables" in let*
(?). As long as there is one data item that is
dependant - otherwise people reading the code will be
confused why the asterisk is there, and start to look
for it...
--
underground experts united
- RE: Always using let*, (continued)
- 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, 2014/09/16
- Re: Always using let*,
Emanuel Berg <=
- 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