1 files changed, 0 insertions, 41 deletions
diff --git a/html/notes/let.md b/html/notes/let.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 4af41bd..0000000
--- a/html/notes/let.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
-# No shadowing (shock!) and a reduced set of `let` forms
-
-This may be shocking for Schemers but I believe shadowing variables is
-evil.  I've already written a bug once that would have been prevented
-had it not been possible to shadow variables, and I don't even write
-that much Scheme code.
-
-And let's face it: The presence of four different forms by the name of
-`let`, `let*`, `letrec`, and `letrec*` is daunting when you're coming
-from another language.  Lack of shadowing allows us to reduce this
-without losing out much functionality.
-
-In the absence of shadowing, `let` becomes nearly useless because you
-can always use `letrec` to fulfill the same need; it's strictly more
-powerful.  (The only thing `let` can do that `letrec` can't, is to
-refer to the previous binding of a variable before shadowing it.)
-
-Further, the value of vanilla `letrec` is dubious when `letrec*` is
-strictly more powerful.  So, in Zisp, `let` is the ultimate binding
-form that does what `letrec*` does in Scheme.
-
-Except it does more!  We haven't looked at the whole `let-values`
-family yet.  In Zisp, these are also merged into the ultimate `let`,
-using the SRFI 71 syntax:
-
-```scheme
-
-(let ((a (one-value))
-      (b c (two-values))
-      ((values d e . rest) (arbitrary-values)))
-  (do-things))
-
-```
-
-You may be wondering whether it also supports the "let loop" syntax of
-vanilla Scheme `let` and the answer is no, because I hate that syntax.
-It has too high a risk of leading to absolute spaghetti code with no
-clear indication as to how the loop variables are being updated.
-
-If you want to loop, use a dedicated looping syntax!  Even `do` is
-better than "let loop" shenanigans if you ask me.