An hour and a half ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: > I often write > > (for.... ([i (in-range N)]) ...) > > In cases where the loop overhead is not significant (i.e., I don't > care whether the compiler can tell that I'm iterating through > integers), it would be nice to write just
What's the overhead? > (for.... ([i N]) ...) > > which would require that integers are treated as sequences. +1 (I actually assumed it was doing that, it's strange that I never tried it...) > Would anyone object to making an exact, nonnegative integer `N' a > sequence equivalent to `(in-range N)'? (No, but I still don't see the performance reason.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev