On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > 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?
Because I thought that setq would store a value in the parameter var "more permanently". Something like: : (foo (need 3)) (need 3) -> 3 : X -> (need 3) # what I expected I thought using a let was necessary to free X afterwards, but even using setq, X was freed: : (foo (need 3)) (need 3) -> 3 : X -> NIL # what really occured My question: which mechanism frees X of the value it was setq-ed? chri -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe