I have written (for ([i N]) ..) many times only to remember that it's in-range.
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:25 AM, 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 > > (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
