| Whenever I need to refactor some code and bind some stuff, I usually have to replace a LET or two and put a WITH, but this rises the question "why not have a LET that behaves like the new EACH?" (let (binding0 value0
binding1 value1)
...)
LET would keep it's current behaviour, but when the first argument is a list, it would behave like a WITH. I think it doesn't make much sense to have two functions for the exactly same thing, and making LET work this way would make the code a little more intuitive for any CL/Scheme user. |