Yes. Also each slice is a sequence. So you could do all the usual
things to it. Including but not limited to using another `for` form,
applying it to afunction, or destructuring it using `match` and
friends.
In these examples I included an extra, "leftover" element to make sure
it was handled:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> > I feel like there should be a simpler way to do this, but I haven't found
> > one despite much Googling and reading of docs about "for" and its
> siblings.
> > Can someone point me the right way?
> >
> > I'd like to be able to iterate o
> I feel like there should be a simpler way to do this, but I haven't found
> one despite much Googling and reading of docs about "for" and its siblings.
> Can someone point me the right way?
>
> I'd like to be able to iterate over a list N elements at a time -- e.g.,
> grab elements 1 and 2, do so
Great, thank you. I was thinking maybe there was some construct that could
do this built-in, the way 'map' can double as 'zip'.
I looked through sugar and it looks very convenient; I'll be using it in
future. Note that when I installed it, I got the following:
[...snip lots of "raco setup: 0 sk
On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:10 PM, David Storrs wrote:
> I'd like to be able to iterate over a list N elements at a time -- e.g., grab
> elements 1 and 2, do something with them, grab 3 and 4, etc.
Your technique seems fine. You could use `split-at` if you wanted to save a
list operation, otherwise i
5 matches
Mail list logo
