From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: loop & finally Date: 15 Sep 2002 06:58:58 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3241061938707352@naggum.no> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: maud.ifi.uio.no 1032073139 27552 129.240.64.16 (15 Sep 2002 06:58:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ifi.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 2002 06:58:59 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:40779 * Software Scavenger | Both of those solve the problem in my example, but it was intended to be an | example of a more general problem. Both solutions were, I think, intended to solve the more general problem, but I now see that your major gripe is not the loss of features of `loop´, but consing up a brand new list, and this is a more valid concern in my view. The even more general problem than we solved would thus be a case such as (loop for code from 32 to 95 then from 160 to 255 do (... something with ISO 8-bit character set conventsions ...)) which would certainly be more convenient than, say, (loop for code from 32 to 255 unless (< 95 code 160) ...) So I am sympathetic to your request now that I understand your goal better. The `loop´ macro is normally supplied in source form with your Common Lisp implementation, so it should be possible to modify it locally, with all the drawbacks that has. I concur that some community effort to define such a mechanism would be useful, and it should be addable without serious compatibility problems because `then´ is not a valid clause. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.