On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:25 AM Matthias Felleisen <matth...@felleisen.org> wrote: > > On Aug 16, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Robert Girault <rfrancoisgira...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I think I'd write your example like this. > > > > (define (foo x) > > (local ((define y (f x)) > > (define z (g y)) > > (define p (h z))) > > (bar p))) > > > > (If I knew what f, g, h do, I might write it differently. If they're > > all only for computing p, local expresses the fact.) > > > > I was educated by HtDP 1st edition: > > > > https://htdp.org/2018-01-06/Book/part_three.html#%28part._sec~3alocal-definitions%29 > > Thanks for the up-vote but let me explain the “local” rationale here and vote > for the ‘inner define’ variant.
[...] > Style Guide https://docs.racket-lang.org/style/index.html Nice to know. Thank you. (I'll keep it ``in my backpack.'') -- 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.
