(define-values (total define-parsed define-outs set-outs out-refs fun-args fun-types init-args) (let loop ([args desc-args] [sum 0] [define-parsed null] [define-outs null] [set-outs null] [out-refs null] [fun-args null] [fun-types null] [init-args null]) (cond [(null? args) (values sum (reverse define-parsed) (reverse define-outs) (reverse set-outs) (reverse out-refs) (reverse fun-args) (reverse fun-types) (reverse init-args))] [else ...... ;; here set new values (loop (cdr args) new-sum new-define-parsed new-define-outs new-set-outs new-out-refs new-fun-args new-fun-types new-init-args)
I have to write values list triple! Or am I not doing it right? Суббота, 18 января 2014, 8:32 -05:00 от "J. Ian Johnson" <[email protected]>: >I advocate it too, when I don't have to iterate through arbitrary do-sequences. >-Ian >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Neil Van Dyke" < [email protected] > >To: "Roman Klochkov" < [email protected] > >Cc: [email protected] >Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 8:19:12 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >Subject: Re: [racket] Style. for/fold for/list for/lists > >Roman Klochkov wrote at 01/18/2014 06:25 AM: >> Where can I find style guide for these >> >> for/lists: > >Wouldn't it be easier to do with named-"let"? > >I advocate named-"let" sometimes on this email list. Here's the first >one I found in Google: >http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2012-April/051686.html > >Neil V. > >____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users -- Roman Klochkov
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
