On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 12:30:01 +0300 (EEST), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Nicolas Neuss wrote: > >>>>> (loop with m = 5 >>>>> initially (setq m 3) >>>>> for i below m do (princ i)) >>>>> >>>>> should print only "012", no?
After reading 6.1.1.6, I say "no" still. The progn for the prologue is: (setq m 3) and then 'm' is set to 5 every pass thru the loop. On the other hand, I keep wondering what you see that I miss... > I suspect one reason some people dislike loop is that very few > implementation get all of it right, making things more confusing then > they really are. The syntax is different, but I've seen several different syntactical forms over the years. I remember hating the new syntax in BIND 7 (over BIND 4) and rarely getting it right for sometime. Using BIND 7 was confusing and annoying and I avoided it if possible. Once I forgot that I disliked the BIND 7 syntax, I could write near error-free configs. I think I forgot 'bind 7 hate' shortly after needing some feature in BIND 7 unavailable in BIND 4. Perhaps LOOP is similar, the different syntax is annoying until you really need LOOP. Winston & Horn (3rd) say "LOOP never stops, almost". I have one problem like that, so I'm wandering off to read 26.1 in CLtL2. -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly fine.
