Hi Christophe, > I'm quite surprised of the use of setq instead of let. > Could you please elaborate?
Do you mean, staying with the generated example code: (de foo X (setq X (car X)) (msg X) (length (eval X)) ) to generate instead: (de foo X (let X (car X) (msg X) (length (eval X)) ) ) This is just unnecessary overhead, as 'let' is basically 'bind' (or 'use' to be more correct) plus 'setq'. And 'X' is bound already by the function call. So why waste time and (stack)space? ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:email@example.com?subject=Unsubscribe