Re: [alexandria-devel] [PATCH] Added Scheme's LET as LET@

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