On Jan 2, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Sean Kanaley wrote:
> What makes you say condlet is questionable? Are there built in racket
> primitives or library extensions that achieve similar goals? It is just a
> bad way to program, perhaps because of "randomly" bound nulls?
(condlet ((false (x 0))
(true (y 1))))
...)
does not make me think y x should be bound at all in the body of condlet.
So yes, initializing a bunch of default values of '() and to 'override' them
with 'good' values just seems wrong.
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
