From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA28625 for caml-red; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:45:59 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA14719 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:26:29 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (tequila.cs.yale.edu [128.36.229.152])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e9AJQSH10450
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:26:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by tequila.cs.yale.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22234
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:26:27 -0400
To: caml-list@inria.fr
From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/caml/news/@RUM.cs.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: lists.caml
Subject: Re: Undefined evaluation order
References: <wd8g0m7mj80.fsf@parate.irisa.fr> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010081528360.11237-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.90
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Path: rum.cs.yale.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: rum.cs.yale.edu
Message-ID: <39e36d5e$1@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
Date: 10 Oct 2000 15:26:22 -0400
X-Trace: 10 Oct 2000 15:26:22 -0400, rum.cs.yale.edu
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com> writes:
> optimizations, but it is mentioned that this usually leads to clearer
> programs.  I'm sure the bytecode compiler argument is valid, but not the code
> clarity one, since it sounds similar to an argument that having uninitialized
> variables is clearer since it forces you to make values explicit, and I don't
> believe that.

I don't think it can be compared that way.  Using let does not introduce
grey-areas like uninitialized variables.  All it does is give a name to
an intermediate value.  This will usually improve the readability of the
code, unless the name is poorly chosen.


        Stefan