On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mark Engelberg wrote: > I frequently find myself wishing that you could use internal > definitions in cond without introducing additional indentation, for > example something like: > > (define (fun-for-list l) > (cond > [(empty? l) ...] > (define fst (first l)) > [(even? fst) ...] > [(odd? fst) ...])) > > rather than > > (define (fun-for-list l) > (cond > [(empty? l) ...] > [else > (define fst (first l)) > (cond > [(even? fst) ...] > [(odd? fst) ...])]))
I sometimes wish that too... but looking at your mail, the second one is much easier to read and understand. John Clements
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
