<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jan 2, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Sean Kanaley wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">What makes you say condlet is questionable?  Are there built in racket primitives or library extensions that achieve similar goals?  It is just a bad way to program, perhaps because of "randomly" bound nulls?</span></blockquote></div><br><div><br></div><div>(condlet ((false (x 0))</div><div>              (true (y 1))))</div><div>  ...)</div><div><br></div><div>does not make me think y x should be bound at all in the body of condlet. </div><div><br></div><div>So yes, initializing a bunch of default values of '() and to 'override' them with 'good' values just seems wrong. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>