[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: DDYER@SCRC-RIVERSIDE.ARPA, David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: loop macro
- From: David C. Plummer <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 18:10 EST
- In-reply-to: <860207151100.8.DDYER@PURPLE.SWW.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 15:11 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 16:11 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Just to set the record straight:
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 10:49 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Since I'm getting into details, I should make quite clear that I do not
speak for Moon in the matter of LOOP. Our opinions on this topic
diverge much more than they do on most other topics.
One of my own strong feelings about LOOP that Moon does not share is
that we should get rid of the conditionals.
False. Dan misremembered my position here. Actually, I've believed for
several years that the conditionals in LOOP were the principal mistake in
the current design. If I were doing it over today, I would certainly use
the regular Lisp conditionals, which of course implies changes to the
theory of collection. In the real world, one might consider keeping the
conditionals just for compatibility, but frowning on their use in new code.
The conditionals wouldn't be so bad if there were BEGIN and END markers for
the scope of the body. Adding BEGIN and END as loop keywords would solve
eliminate my objections to the loop conditionals.
Oh, barf. What Moon meant was
(y (unless (or a b)
(z (collect pray))
(otherwise (error "Loser!")))
Just adding block-construct keywords to LOOP is continuing a