Subject: Re: resonable use of internal functions From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1999/11/18 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Robert Monfera <email@example.com> | What are the pros and conses (sic) of &aux, as an alternative to let in | some cases? this may sound silly, but if you can avoid a few LET bindings among many, it's going to impact your maximum indentation favorably. such concerns should not be dismissed _too_ lightly, although it might be a good argument in its favor. in some cases, however, &AUX is useful to avoid a LET binding or a SETQ that does nothing but resolve a designator or some other relevant work on an argument. it's a difficult to spell out any rules for when this is good style, though. | I like &aux, but I have a vague recollection that it may be retrograde to | use it (I can not think of the reason). I like having &AUX in the language. it tells me somebody thought about something important and came up with a solution. I'm not sure _exactly_ what they thought about all that time, but it's evidence of intelligence at work. in fact, the whole lambda list concept in Common Lisp gives me that feeling, with all its variations and intriguing details. #:Erik -- Attention Microsoft Shoppers! MS Monopoly Money 6.0 are now worthless.