Forgive the extremely contrived example, but how common is this sort of thing: (for*/fold ([res '()] #:result res) ([elem (in-range 10)] [elem-str (in-value (number->string elem))]) (values (cons elem-str res))) that is, using in-values in combination with a for* form to achieve let-like bindings as part of the for clauses? I used to really dislike having to wrap the body in another let to establish bindings when there’s a perfectly good binding form already. Is this a common idiom?

@sydney.lambda two things — first, you want to use in-value around the (number->string ...) to get it to work right. second, it’s reasonably common, that’s why in-value exists. third, you can just use (define elem-str ...) in the body in that example. fourth, you don’t need the #:result clause there, since it’s just res

@samth sorry, I completely forgot the in-value in the code which was the whole point. That wasn’t the best example as you mentioned, but I’m glad you saw what I was trying to get at, thanks. It was mentioned in general and I just wanted to make sure I was understanding it correctly.