Okay, okay, currently: let $ x $ compute 'x use x
==> (let ((x (compute 'x)) (use x)) So, let's try the new formulation: let !!$ x $ compute 'x !!use x ==> let INDENT INDENT x INDENT compute 'x ; stack: (0 2 ? ?) DEDENT DEDENT ; stack: (0 2), indentation = 2 use x DEDENT ===> let !\\ !!x !!!compute 'x !use x So it works right even in the degenerate case. But it doesn't *extend* the way it might be naively expected, as seen in the previous posts: let $ x $ compute 'x y $ compute 'y use x y ==> let !\\ !!x !!!compute 'x !!!!y !!!!!compute 'y !use x y --- Hmm. I wonder if, however, using a similar approach for ENLIST rather than SUBLIST would work??? Sincerely, AmkG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss