Comment by CyberDildonics
18 hours ago
How does that relate to a simple loop construct though? Why would you want that to be mind bending in interface or implementation? Every other language makes it as simple as possible.
18 hours ago
How does that relate to a simple loop construct though? Why would you want that to be mind bending in interface or implementation? Every other language makes it as simple as possible.
This isn't really true – you have languages like Odin that only have a for loop, no while loop, that only supports index-based iteration. Then you have languages like Python that let you loop over an arbitrary iterable, and define your own iterables. Some languages allow conditionals in loops, some don't. Some let you loop over multiple iterables, while some only take one at a time.
Common Lisp happens to be on the upper end of what loop allows – you can use it as a standard for loop pretty easily, but the interface gives you many other options.
And then there's Scheme, where there are no iterative loops; all looping is done with recursion. You can build pretty much everything other languages do with loops on top of that, though.
Not true. Scheme has `do`. See R7RS section 4.2.4 "Iteration".
1 reply →
> Common Lisp happens to be on the upper end of what loop allows – you can use it as a standard for loop pretty easily, but the interface gives you many other options.
If you really wanna get freaky try 'do. It is the heroin addicted cousin of 'loop
https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_do_...
`do` is very straightforward and basic compared to the things that `loop` allows.
7 replies →