Paul Rubin wrote: > Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You can start with loop by using only the simple and straightforward >> constructs, and slowly move towards the more complicated cases when >> necessary. The nice thing about loop is that with some practice, you >> can write code that more or less reads like English. > > Yeah, but I'd also get English-like imprecision. Anyway, If I wanted > to write code that reads like English, I'd write in Cobol.
That's the neat thing in Lisp: You can stay in Lisp if you want to write code in a different style. No need to switch your whole tool chain. >> All Common Lisp implementations that I am aware of provide ways to >> enable TCO, so it's definitely possible to program in a functional >> style if you want to. It's just that the ANSI Common Lisp >> specification doesn't guarantee this, > > Yes; I'd rather go by what the standard says than rely on > implementation-dependent hacks. You shouldn't limit yourself to what some standard says. Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
