2 ms·
It has in-sequence, however it uses elt I think. For efficiency reasons, there's a separation. Otherwise how should it work? In any case, you could probably wri
by maydup-nem 5y ago
It has in-sequence, however it uses elt I think. For efficiency reasons, there's a separation. Otherwise how should it work? In any case, you could probably write a macro that does the right thing based on type.
> Previous doesn't have the same flow,
I have provided a clause macro that uses the exact syntax you showed, you don't have to use previous.
- taeric 5y agoApologies, I was agreeing with your macro on why I like "then" over "previous". I did not intend mine as a correction or challenge. My point on "in-sequence" and such was more that the main complaint I ever hear regarding LOOP is that: (loop for c across "hello" collect c) is not the same as (loop for c in '(#\h #\e #\l #\l #\o) collect c) Specifically, "in" versus "across" seems to upset a lot of folks. I don't recall ever hearing too many complaints about the syntax not being more nested. Again, though, looks neat and I'm excited to dive more into it.
- maydup-nem 5y agoOkay, gotcha. Yeah, I can see how having distinct keywords may be seen as inconvenient. I think if there were a general container-keyword that wouldn't introduce any cost based on a type declaration, that would be cool, but it's not something I have encountered a real need for.