On 02/07/2015 04:31 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Per Bothner scripsit:
>> So I think this API should go on the back-burner, and we should instead
>> focus on a looping API - keeping generators as part of the latter.
>
> Writing up foof-loop would be very useful.

I have two problems with foof-loop:

(1) It's conceptually rather complex, trying to be all-singing-all-dancing.
I haven't yet fully groked it.  (However, that can be ok, as long as
the simple and common use cases are easy to read and write.)

(2) It's a bit verbose, especially for simple things:

   (loop ((for element (in-list list))) ...)

compared to Racket:

   (for ((element list)) ...)
or:
   (for ((element (in-list list))) ...)
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/