[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))
...
)
- Always using let*, Cecil Westerhof, 2014/09/14
- 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 <=
- RE: Always using let*, Drew Adams, 2014/09/16
- Re: Always using let*, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/16
- 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