A few seconds ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:04:18 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > 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? > > The same as using `(in-range N)' as a value: an indirection on the > `(curry = N)' test, `add1' increment, and identity conversion from > the loop index to the loop value. [...]
Ugh. I completely misread the above as: | 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 and thought that the new thing is supposed to fixed that overhead... -- ((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