Go for it!! Robby
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alexis King <[email protected]> wrote: > A question[1] was asked on Stack Overflow today that used `range` from > racket/list in a for loop, then was baffled as to why it was so slow compared > to a manually written loop using named let. To some extent, confusion of this > sort is unavoidable, since it stems from a confusion about the difference > between lists and sequences, but this seems like a reasonably common mistake > to make. Is there any reason `range` cannot be adjusted to cooperate with for > loops so that it gets compiled like `in-range`? > > It seems like there would be two ways to do this: either make for loops > recognize `range` like `in-range`, or make `range` a macro using > define-sequence-syntax that just expands to the existing `range` procedure > when used in an expression context. Both of these could easily be made > backwards compatible, and it could only make things faster. Is there any > technical or philosophical reason to not do that before I attempt it? > > [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/q/41444129/465378 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/4ED13FA1-45FC-4EAC-94EB-AFF15D91EAB0%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAL3TdOMgfyyMGNNTP0qqt0NJ9dNF-rbzrsvceNpuMLEnf-ZswQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
