Scribit Nikodemus Siivola dies 26/01/2013 hora 16:21: > I'm OK with a named-let in principle, I think. Maybe. But I'm > dead-set against calling it let@.
The thing is, if you want to code with a scheme style, you'll use named lets very often, so it ought to have a rather short name. Why the issue with let@, for my curiosity's sake? (for me, @ looks a lot like a spiral or something like an ongoing loop) > (Most of the time when I see code written with named let I want to > rewrite it into something more readable, but I'm willing to believe > that it doesn't have to be always bad...) Ever since I understood recursion, I've always found this way more readable than anything else, to what would you usually rewrite a named let? Curiously, Pierre -- pie...@nothos.net OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ alexandria-devel mailing list alexandria-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/alexandria-devel
