On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:47 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > Bakul Shah scripsit: > >> If Scheme (cl)aims to be a high level language, it should leave >> efficiency issues to implementations and use generic functions >> where it makes sense. > > Scheme is a monomorphic language with two exceptions: trivial parametric > polymorphism around its "obj" type (for example, the contents of a list > or vector can be an object), and ad hoc polymorphism of the numeric > procedures around exact and inexact numbes. (There is further ad hoc > numeric polymorphism for many implementations, but there are Schemes > with only a single representation for exact numbers.) > > If you want Common Lisp, Haskell, or Scala, you know where to find them. > >> Note that a CL style LOOP macro, as Alex suggests, while more >> powerful can make compositions uglier (or harder) or "inside >> out". > > There is also SRFI 42, which I personally prefer to loop macros. There > will likely be a bonny fight on the subject in WG2.
Since foof-loop is the only sane loop macro ever proposed for Scheme this is shaping up to be a fine fight indeed. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
