Reason to hate loop
in [Lisp]
|
From: His kennyness on 25 Apr 2010 18:36 Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2010-04-25 15:08:59 +0100, His kennyness said: > >> Perhaps I misconstrued "well-known idiom"? If all you meant is, yeah, >> that's f*cked up, but hard-core loopers know about it" then (a) we >> agree and (b) I do not understand how that is an objection to a loop >> rant. > > I don't understand this whole thread. Why would anyone assume either > that each iteration creates a new binding,.. So your position id that "oh dummy just add (let ((x x)).. and you'll be fine does not smack of smoke and mirrors? Talk about obscure incantations.... kt or that the same binding is > reused? Neither seems particularly better to me in the abstract, and I > can imagine a language specification which just left this undefined[*]. > So, obviously, anyone who wanted to capture such bindings would wrap LET > around their code. I mean, seriously, who would not do that? > > --tim > > [*] Such as, for instance, the Common Lisp specification (see DOTIMES, > DOLIST).
From: Johan Ur Riise on 26 Apr 2010 01:52 Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:38:48 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > >> On 2010-04-25 15:08:59 +0100, His kennyness said: >> >>> Perhaps I misconstrued "well-known idiom"? If all you meant is, yeah, >>> that's f*cked up, but hard-core loopers know about it" then (a) we >>> agree and (b) I do not understand how that is an objection to a loop >>> rant. >> >> I don't understand this whole thread. Why would anyone assume either > > The purpose of this whole thread is to vent frustration that arose > from making an unwarranted assumption. Correct
From: Zach Beane on 26 Apr 2010 08:52
"Steven E. Harris" <seh(a)panix.com> writes: > Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes: > >> Why would anyone assume either that each iteration creates a new >> binding, or that the same binding is reused? > > I'm reminded of this thread from October 2002: > > Midfunction Recursion > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/422226bb18e56cad/19fae84599dd027a > > I always remember -- fondly -- the threads involving direct > correspondence with Erik Naggum. I made http://xach.com/naggum/articles/ because I feel the same way, and because the Google Groups interface has gotten progressively worse over the years, sometimes making it impossible to do reasonable author searches. Hope you also find it useful. http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/search?q="midfunction+recursion" Zach |