RE: [External] : `let' vs `let*' (was: Re: How do I pass a variable defined in a wrapping let, to a lambda?)

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 867 bytes --]

> would it be a good idea to just have `let' and
> that would then be the same as today's `let*'?

No.  Having both makes it clear(er) to _human_
readers when some of the bound variables might
depend on others.

Using `let' lets readers know that (at least
from the binding forms) there are no such
dependencies.  Using `let*' offers a signal
that there likely are such dependencies.

It's for us people.
___

You can do all conditional things you want
with only `cond'.  Or only `if'.  Or only
`when'.  Or only `unless'.  These multiple
constructs exist for us humans - to help
convey use/intention/purpose.

But such an advantage depends on some use
pattern that's conventional.  Same with
`let(*)'.

And whoever says you can use convention
to help convey meaning also implies that
you can mislead, by misusing or not using
convention.

[-- Attachment #2: winmail.dat --]
[-- Type: application/ms-tnef, Size: 13909 bytes --]