interesting , i was just intending to have syntax and features a bit like C in fact.Your syntax goes beyond, Racket for too, i do not know Chibli scheme. Regards, Damien
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:20 PM Linus Björnstam <linus.inter...@fastmail.se> wrote: > If you want a bit more advanced looping you could have a look at my > goof-loop: https://git.sr.ht/~bjoli/goof-loop > > It currently does not support a break or continue clause, but adding one > should not really be a problem. > > A good thing is that it does not rely on mutation for anything except > higher order sequences, meaning it does not lead to the implicit boxing > overhead of set!, which is a good idea in loops since that quickly adds up. > > Best regards > Linus Björnstam > > On Sun, 4 Sep 2022, at 13:13, Jean Abou Samra wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Adding back the list in CC. > > > > > > Le 04/09/2022 à 12:49, Damien Mattei a écrit : > >> hello jean, > >> yes (thank you for your help) i'm a sorcerer's apprentice that always > >> push to later the understanding of literals in syntax-rules, but by > >> instinct i finally succeed in making works the weird thing :-) , here > >> is my macro definition now for a for with break and continue: > >> > >> (define-syntax for > >> > >> (lambda (stx) > >> (syntax-case stx () > >> ((kwd (init test incrmt) body ...) > >> > >> (with-syntax > >> ((BREAK (datum->syntax #'kwd 'break)) > >> (CONTINUE (datum->syntax #'kwd 'continue))) > >> > >> #`(call/cc > >> (lambda (escape) > >> (let-syntax > >> ((BREAK (identifier-syntax (escape)))) > >> init > >> (let loop () > >> (when test > >> > >> #,#'(call/cc > >> (lambda (next) > >> (let-syntax > >> ((CONTINUE > >> (identifier-syntax (next)))) > >> body ...))) > >> > >> incrmt > >> (loop))))))))))) > >> > >> note the mysterious #,#' that save the day ;-) > > > > > > For me, it works without it… ? > > > > > >> and a few examples (in Scheme+) > >> > >> ;; scheme@(guile-user)> (for ({i <+ 0} {i < 5} {i <- {i + 1}}) {x <+ > >> 7} (display x) (newline) (break)) > >> ;; 7 > >> ;; scheme@(guile-user)> (for ({i <+ 0} {i < 5} {i <- {i + 1}}) {x <+ > >> 7} (continue) (display x) (newline) (break)) > >> ;; scheme@(guile-user)> > >> > >> ;; (for ({k <+ 0} {k < 3} {k <- {k + 1}}) > >> ;; (display k) > >> ;; (newline) > >> ;; (for ({i <+ 0} {i < 5} {i <- {i + 1}}) {x <+ 7} > >> ;; (display x) > >> ;; (newline) > >> ;; (break)) > >> ;; (newline)) > >> > >> ;; 0 > >> ;; 7 > >> > >> ;; 1 > >> ;; 7 > >> > >> ;; 2 > >> ;; 7 > >> > >> ;; (for ({k <+ 0} {k < 3} {k <- {k + 1}}) > >> ;; (display k) > >> ;; (newline) > >> ;; (continue) > >> ;; (for ({i <+ 0} {i < 5} {i <- {i + 1}}) {x <+ 7} > >> ;; (display x) > >> ;; (newline) > >> ;; (break)) > >> ;; (newline)) > >> > >> ;; 0 > >> ;; 1 > >> ;; 2 > >> > >> > https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/for-next-step.scm > >> > >> it also works with imbricated loops in a natural way (but other > >> interpretation and implementation could be done , C act like this ,i > >> think) > >> but if it could be coded better i will use a better version > > > > > > Yes, it can be done better; see my reply on the other thread. > > > > > > Best, > > Jean >
