FWIW, I don't like that any of these 'in-*' thigns are optional. I was recently reading over a script that was used to build web pages from the output of testing runs for my compilers class and there were several nested for loops without in-* thingies and it was painfully difficult for me to reconstruct what the contracts of the functions were because of that. (These loops were iterating over the output of some other, long-lost script that generated the output and I was writing an adapter from the new, cleaned up scripts to this one.)
So I'd be happier if you asked to get rid of all of any possibility to avoid writing 'in-*'. Even very short names, eg using the natural number unicode character would be better than using nothing. Robby On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> 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 > > (for.... ([i N]) ...) > > which would require that integers are treated as sequences. > > Would anyone object to making an exact, nonnegative integer `N' a > sequence equivalent to `(in-range N)'? > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
