[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Some easy ones (?)
- To: Andy Freeman <ANDY@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU>
- Subject: Some easy ones (?)
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1986 03:51:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Jul 1986 12:56-EDT from Andy Freeman <ANDY at Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
If let* doesn't allow duplicate names, then we'll end up writing
nested let* expressions (which is senseless, let* was invented to
avoid nested let expressions) or using setq more than necessary.
I can't imagine any reasonable piece of code that would use the same
name twice in a LET*. At least, I can't imagine any such code that
would not be much clearer if done some other way. So I don't think that
we'll end up writing nested LET* forms if we outlaw duplicate variable
names in a LET*. Unless oyu can supply a reasonable example, I think
we're better off not making an exception for this one case.
-- Scott