Interestingly enough, I tried to explain this idea to the Imperative Advanced
Placement crowd in the 1990s. With functional programming -- control from
tail-recursive functions -- is more expressive than programming with limited
loops because you can (1) break/resume/continue/foobar your
Loop syntax and sugar is fine. And having #:continue and #:break
keywords at the top of the form is sufficient warning of surprises
ahead, IMHO.
I do have a minor ongoing concern that people coming from other
languages lately latch onto the for family of forms from the start,
don't get
On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Loop syntax and sugar is fine. And having #:continue and #:break
keywords at the top of the form is sufficient warning of surprises ahead,
IMHO.
I do have a minor ongoing concern that people coming from other languages
lately latch onto
I think this is a good idea, and something that I've wanted for a long
time. But there are ways to make it much better, and generalize to all
loops.
First, recognize that a `for/...` loop is really a recursive function,
which is passing along a bunch of arguments. In this setting,
`continue`
If adding breakcontinue features to your fancy iteration syntax, I
propose that any uses of these features in source code be somehow very
prominent.
For example, perhaps there is a keyword that must be at the top of the
fancy iteration form, something like
I disagree strongly that this is un-rackety. Consider the following loop:
(define v )
(let loop ([i 100])
(define e (vector-ref v i))
(cond [(zero? i) null]
[(= 999 e) null]
[(even? e) (loop (add1 i))]
[else (cons e (loop add1 i))]))
I don't think that's
On Jul 1, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@cs.indiana.edu wrote:
I disagree strongly that this is un-rackety. Consider the following loop:
(define v )
(let loop ([i 100])
(define e (vector-ref v i))
(cond [(zero? i) null]
[(= 999 e) null]
[(even? e)
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:52 AM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
On Jul 1, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@cs.indiana.edu wrote:
I disagree strongly that this is un-rackety. Consider the following loop:
(define v )
(let loop ([i 100])
(define e (vector-ref v
There are a couple issues here,
One is that #:when in for-clauses allows you to skip iterations, but you want
it in the body. This is a cosmetic difference that you can get around by doing
#:when (begin imperative-stuff-before-guard guard). If you want ecs to escape
an entire for loop, that's
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:40 PM, J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
One is that #:when in for-clauses allows you to skip iterations, but you want
it in the body. This is a cosmetic difference that you can get around by
doing #:when (begin imperative-stuff-before-guard guard). If you want
Hi Jay,
Have not been following Racket development too closely lately, but
perhaps you might find this helpful?
http://planet.racket-lang.org/display.ss?package=while-loop.pltowner=dyoo
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
11 matches
Mail list logo
