As others said, naming intermediate values can make things clearer. (Taken too far, maybe it's hard to see the forest for the trees? I think it depends on the audience and the domain.)
You happened to choose an example that illustrates a reason maybe not to do this with let* or define -- cleaning up resources like input ports. I would write this particular thing using call/input-url. https://docs.racket-lang.org/net/url.html#(def._((lib._net%2Furl..rkt)._call%2Finput-url)) For instance, I'd probably change construct-url to return a url struct like its name suggests, then write something like: (define (get-data input) (define url (construct-url input)) (call/input-url url get-pure-port read-json)) or perhaps just: (define (get-data input) (call/input-url (construct-url input) get-pure-port read-json)) This takes care of closing the port, even if read-json errors. Also, I like the way it reads: "From this URL, connect this way, and read this way." So, this is another way to name pieces, taking advantage of well-chosen names for the functions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
