Eli Barzilay wrote at 09/16/2012 11:15 AM:
If you need performance, your best bet is probably to translate things to `for...' loops if possible.
In 5.3, can the "for"-something constructs ever result in faster code than is possible with equivalent code using, say, named-"let"?
So far, it seems that handwritten code using *simple* Racket primitives matches or beats performance of higher-level Racket constructs. Which is comforting.
Neil V. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
