From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!134.222.94.5!npeer.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: the "loop" macro References: <3B88815A.B5D98835@rcn.com> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3207807528689140@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:38:49 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@Norway.EU.net X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 998818729 193.71.66.49 (Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:38:49 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:38:49 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:14819 * Ted Sandler > Okay, is "loop" useful? Paul Graham mentions that the ANSI > specification is pretty vague on the specifics of "loop" and as such, > its use can't be recommended, etc. Unfortunately, Paul Graham is pretty vague on the _reasons_ he does not like "loop", and as such, his recommendations cannot be trusted, etc. Ignore his hostility towards it. "loop" is simply _way_ useful. If you are blinded by an irrational desire for syntactic purity that is thwarted by the slightly unusual "loop" form (which demonstrates excellently how you can build mini-languages in macros in Common Lisp), maybe you are better off looking at Scheme? Paul Graham has some pretty bizarre Scheme envy, too, which is another reason not to trust his recommendations. Scheme people hate iteration, except when they run around in perfect circles, cursing and re-cursing Common Lisp's iteration constructs. ///