On 23 March 2013 06:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > (define (f x) > (let ((s 0)) > (with-special-soft ((s 0)) > (let lp ((i 0)) > (cond > ((>= i 100) s) > ((= i 50) (abort-to-prompt 'tag) (lp (+ i 1))) > (else (set! s (+ s i)) (lp (+ i 1))))))))
Is this typical of your intended use case? Why can S not be part of the named-let and avoid the use of ‘set!’?
