Re: Lexical let and setq

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

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)))
  (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.  

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