On Friday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, to support breaking after the current element, I'm trying
> out `#:final'. A `#:final' clause is like `#:break', except that it
> ends the loop after the next run of the body. [...]
(When I first saw this, I thought that it was a kind of a "the value
I like most of that and don't object to the rest, except for leaving out a
version of #:break-unless. Especially because "break" is already a
negative word. Just like #:unless (bad?) is more natural than #:when (not
(bad?)), #: (ok-to-continue?) is more natural than #:break (not
(ok-to-continue?)
On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> My $0.02: I find #:while and #:when to be too close, and #:until and
> #:unless even closer.
More bike-shedding: I agree. In response to eli: I find the difficulty of
reading "break-when" to be an adequate cost to pay to highlight the differen
At Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:30:22 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Four hours ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >
> > Also, I think the names `#:while' and `#:until' are too close to
> > `#:when' and `#:unless'. I suggest `#:break-when' and `#:break-unless'.
> > Compare:
> >
> > > (for*/list ([j 2] [i 10] #:wh
My $0.02: I find #:while and #:when to be too close, and #:until and
#:unless even closer.
Robby
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 5 hours ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>>
>> Has this been brought up before? I can't recall. Does anyone else
>> run into the same issue?
>
> (I t
5 hours ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>
> Has this been brought up before? I can't recall. Does anyone else
> run into the same issue?
(I think that I brought this up when the comprehensions were first
discussed, pointing at the similar tool I have in Swindle which makes
implementing them very easy
+1
I've been using let/ec for this same functionality, and it's made me sad.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Carl Eastlund"
To: "Matthew Flatt"
Cc: "PLT Developers"
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:49:20 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Su
I agree that #:while and #:until are easily confused with #:when and
#:unless. I slightly prefer #:stop- to #:break- as a prefix here, it seems
a more natural word. I like the idea of allowing these clauses at the end
of the body to give a notion of stopping after the current iteration. I
had be
I think this is a good idea. The technique to implement it is embedded
in `for/vector' (to handle a vector length), and I can generalize that
and move it into `for...'.
Also, I think the names `#:while' and `#:until' are too close to
`#:when' and `#:unless'. I suggest `#:break-when' and `#:break-u
I would like the for/... comprehension macros to have #:while and #:until
clauses similar to the #:when and #:unless clauses. I often find I want to
short-circuit the sequence at some point, but there is no elegant way to do
it. I could probably write sequence-while and sequence-until, but I don'
10 matches
Mail list logo
