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 > <default...@gmail.com> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/f7839fa2-c355-4165-bbe0-49e3e028ebd5n%40googlegroups.com.
