Per Bothner scripsit: > These procedures seem to have few or no valid use cases. > In cases where they might be used, they don't provide much > of an advantage over do or named-let.
While it's true that lockstep codepoint-in/codepoint-out processing is unfit for many transformation jobs, it can handle simple transliterations like ISO 9 (Cyrillic/Latin). String-for-each is far more flexible: it can be provide a string one codepoint at a time and accumulate results in a string-port or similar device. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Please leave your values Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
