From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: basic question (probably w/ no good answer)
Date: 2000/04/08
Message-ID: <3164150875655283@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 608238183
References: <m3d7o1cqaw.fsf@lost-in-space.ne.mediaone.net>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 955162085 8652 195.0.192.66 (8 Apr 2000 02:48:05 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Apr 2000 02:48:05 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Dave Bakhash <cadet@alum.mit.edu>
| My guess: don't close off the LET, but keep things nested, even
| though those final expressions don't need to be inside the LET.

  my rule of thumb: unless you use a binding form for its progn value,
  i.e., in situations where you may use only one form, move the subforms
  that don't need the bindings out of the binding form.  this makes it
  clear when the scope of the bindings cease to exist, reducing the amount
  of work a reader of the code would have to go through to figure out that
  the bindings _don't_ affect these forms, and it makes it clear that the
  binding form does not return a useful value, but is there for side
  effect.  clues like this can make reading code a lot easier.

  this is likely a matter of some personal taste.

#:Erik