[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Rename named `let'

[Carl Eastlund]

On 1/29/07, Neil Jerram <neil at ossau.uklinux.net> wrote:
>
> But why?  Won't this gratuitously break loads of existing code?  Or
> are you saying that you will still retain the existing syntax, and add
> a new, more recommended one?
>
> To me, named let feels natural, an intuitive combination of the ideas
> of local bindings (the let) and recursion (the name).  Argument based
> on the detailed differences between let and letrec feels over-precise
> to me, and ends up missing the wood for the trees.

To me, it's all about code readability.  The name "let" is suggestive
of "let x be 5" and similar mathematical bindings, so it is natural to
start variable bindings that way.  It has no mnemonic for recursive
computation, and most "let" forms in code are not for recursive
computation, so named-let forms can be confusing to programmers
unfamiliar with them.

I support giving the inline recursive computation form of "let" a more
descriptive name, that's all.  Precisely because it combines "let"
with another idea, and I think the form "let" should not be more than
its name suggests.

-- 
Carl Eastlund