Re: Always using let*

[Emanuel Berg]

sokobania.01@gmail.com writes:

> If I have several variables with "enough" binding
> dependency, I use "let*".
>
> But, quite often, I have several independent
> variable, except one or two. So, I would use "let"
> rather than "let*", but don't bind these variables
> and then use "setq" in the body of the let: (let ((a
> (val-for-a)) (b (val-for-b)) ... x y) ; depend on a b
> (setq x (val-for-x a b)) (setq y (val-for-y a b)) ...
> )

Why not use the let* for everything? Or nest a the let*
and let - perhaps overkill... Because I don't see
anything wrong with "independent variables" in let*
(?). As long as there is one data item that is
dependant - otherwise people reading the code will be
confused why the asterisk is there, and start to look
for it...

-- 
underground experts united