[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Always using let*

From: sokobania . 01
Subject: Re: Always using let*
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
User-agent: G2/1.0

Le lundi 15 septembre 2014 18:15:14 UTC+2, Drew Adams a écrit :

> In sum: If I use `let*' then look for a binding dependency.
>         If I use `let' then don't bother to look for one.

I agree.

Some cases are intermediate.

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))

reply via email to

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