> > Thanks for the up-vote but let me explain the “local” rationale here and > vote for the ‘inner define’ variant. > [snip]... > > > In Racket programs for the world, possibly real, you want to avoid > rightward drift. Indenting deeper and deeper makes code appear ‘ugly’ to > many eyes, especially those used to other languages. But I will say this is > also the one point about ‘ugly’-syntax languages that I have learned to > appreciate (plus some concision in names). > > Internal defines are thus much more preferable than local, let, letrec, > and similar constructs. See the Style Guide, where I spelled this out in a > bit more detail. >
In general cases I agree with this and view heavy indenting as at a minimum code smell but 'let' is so conceptually simple to work with syntactically. If I want to extend/alter/make an analogous construction of 'let' it's three to twenty lines depending on what I'm doing. I have no clue how to start messing with internal definitions in a similar way. Deren -- 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.
