Re: What does "lacks a prefix" mean?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.6748.1436654668.904.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:

> 3) "let", if let was let*, would be less thinking in
>    advance since then you wouldn't have to think "so,
>    will I have variables now which will depend on
>    each other?" You'd just type "let" in either case!
>    Likewise, when you modify code long after you
>    first wrote it, you often insert a new variable
>    that is "dependent" on another, and then you have
>    to change the `let' to `let*'. But this is very
>    easy to forget and it is always a silly mistake
>    when it happens.

This is a reasonable argument. It's not uncommon to start writing a let, 
realize that the initialization expression has some repetition, so you 
want to refactor it to use variables for them. Then you need to change 
it to let*.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***