On Sunday, January 27, 2013, Pierre Thierry wrote:
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

Here's the thing: I think if you want to code Scheme style you should use Scheme - or at least a library that tries to integrate schemey idioms into CL. I do not believe Alexandria should try to incorporate scheme idioms - not because they're bad, but because they're not CL idioms.

I find named-let mostly useful for quick initial ports of code written in Scheme.
 
the issue with let@, for my curiosity's sake? (for me, @ looks a lot
like a spiral or something like an ongoing loop)

I don't really care if people think it a matter of taste or objective truth. The fact remains that I'm opposed to single-character suffixes or prefixes denoting variants of standard operators in general purpose libraries. (I'm much more lenient about special purpose libs.)


> (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?

Depends. Labels, do, dolist, do*, loop, tagbody, mutually recursive toplevel defuns, dotimes, prog, y-combinator. Whatever seems most appropriate for the task at hand.
 

Curiously,
Pierre
--
pierre@nothos.net
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A


--
Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus