On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:25 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),
Or in cases where you're using Typed Racket, and the compiler can tell exactly what you're doing. :) > 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)'? I am very strongly in favor of this. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
