Common Lisp "let"

[Dan Weinreb <address@hidden>]

Regarding your point about the syntax being insufficiently redundant: I
agree with you that it was a mistake to allow "let" to accept the "var"
form as well as the "(var value)", for exactly the reason you say.

However, in my opinion, this is just a mistake in the design of "let" rather
than being a serious systemic problem with Lisp-like syntax.

-- Dan

>
>Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:16:43 -0700
>From: Dave Long <dl@silcom.com>
>Subject: Re: infix notation [Re: Macros and little languages] 
>
>
>It is obviously more verbose than either prefix
>or infix, but that may be a feature.  cf.
>"Lisp syntax considered insufficiently redundant"
><http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2002-April/000705.html>
>
>- -Dave
>