[plt-scheme] Comments on an alternate syntax for let?

From: Jos Koot (jos.koot at telefonica.net)
Date: Mon Apr 7 18:36:00 EDT 2008

I once made a language-defining module that allows bindings of the form ((f 
x ... [. x]) b b ....) in all single values let-like forms, but I did not 
use it much. I think that with respect to syntax (as with spelling) some 
conservatism is good, because changes disturb the quick reading of a 
sentence in slices. We can read a syntax (or spelling) we are accustumed to 
with far less eye movements and in much larger slices at a time than one 
that looks unfamiliar.  Changes require reprogramming of the pattern 
recognition in out brains. mho.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Orleans" <dougorleans at gmail.com>
To: "Neil Van Dyke" <neil at neilvandyke.org>
Cc: "PLT-Scheme" <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Comments on an alternate syntax for let?

> Neil Van Dyke writes:
> > I never use internal "define" myself (as a matter of preference),
> I use internal "define" mostly to define local procedures.  It's less
> awkward than "(let ((f (lambda (x) ...))) ...)".  If I were designing a
> new "let" I'd allow shorthand syntax: "(let (((f x) ...)) ...)".
> I also sometimes use internal "define" to avoid indentation creep, but
> usually that's a sign that I should refactor into smaller procedures.
> --dougorleans at gmail.com
> P.S. Oh wait, I just remembered, swindle's "let" already allows this
> shorthand!  But I keep forgetting it exists.
> http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/372/html/swindle/base-doc.html#5
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme 

Posted on the users mailing list.