What is the reason for not offering a looping construct in racket?
For
example, something like:
(loop (i 1 10) (print i))
Just for the masses, it seems simpler to use.
Simpler than what? For what application?
The classic C/C++/Java "for" loop was designed for, and is almost
always used f
On Jun 27, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Brad Long wrote:
> Dear racketeers,
>
> What is the reason for not offering a looping construct in racket? For
> example, something like:
>
> (loop (i 1 10) (print i))
>
It's there:
(for/list ([i (in-range 1 10)]) i)
prints out
'(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
... also
FWIW, I like to assert that the familiar "FOR A = 1 TO 10" is actually
not often needed in idiomatic Scheme. More often, you're processing a
sequence, or you're doing functional programming such that you need to
recurse anyway to avoid mutation, or you need premature exits
sometimes. One poss
Plus loops per se are evil -- opium for the masses if you so wish. -- Matthias
On Jun 27, 2010, at 9:34 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Please see 'for' in the docs. Here's the relevant section of the Guide:
>
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/for.html
>
> Robby
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:
Please see 'for' in the docs. Here's the relevant section of the Guide:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/for.html
Robby
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Brad Long wrote:
> Dear racketeers,
>
> What is the reason for not offering a looping construct in racket? For
> example, something like:
>
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
