Good question. I know I have done exactly that in the past, but I guess I just forgot about that pattern in my more recent code. Other possible reasons include "because I don't like the unnecessary parens around a single id" and "because I like the indentation of let* (4 chars) much better than let*-values (11 chars) and want to delay introducing let*-values until it becomes necessary."
On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:54:37 PM UTC-5 gneuner2 wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 09:44:42 -0700 (PDT), Ryan Kramer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > : > >The other feature of let++ is that it also supports let-values. (Having > to > >nest "let, then let-values, then let again" was another reason my code > >would get too indented for my taste.) > > : > > Possibly a stupid question, but ... > > What causes you to /have to/ 'nest "let, then let-values, then let > again"'? Assuming no intervening body code, a single let*-values > could cover all of it (with the same semantics). > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/f7839fa2-c355-4165-bbe0-49e3e028ebd5n%40googlegroups.com.
