I agree to some extent. To get the same power from rackets loops you have to do a lot more work using for/fold. I have an implementation of rackets loops for g

I agree to some extent. To get the same power from rackets loops you have to do a lot more work using for/fold. I have an implementation of rackets loops for guile scheme, and I'm currently rewriting it to allow arbitrary transformations in the loop clauses. Say I want to write a Fibonacci loop, currently I can't do this: (for/list ((a :first 0 :then b) (b :first 1 :then (+ a b))) a)