Re: [clisp-list] bug in loop?

[Fred C. <fc...@al...>]

Not that I am particularly an expert, but I don't understand why the 
ordering should be picky in this regard. As i understand it these sets 
of things (for i in j with k in l where m is p and Q likes R) (the 
"likes" being a user defined function) seems like the ordering reflects 
the order in which the interpretation should be done and not a syntactic 
limit on what can be accepted. Note that efficiency may be driven by 
ordering of the various conditionals...

FC

On 1/25/11 7:54 AM, Don Cohen wrote:
> Sam Steingold writes:
>
>   >  the form is wrong: "with" forms should come _before_ the "for" forms.
>   >  I think we should reject this.
> Is that in the spec?  (Where?)
>   >  Do other lisps accept it?
> The few replies I've seen suggest they do.
> If you think with's should precede for's then at least you could
> output a warning, or perhaps better, an error for noncompliant
> code.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)!
> Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free!
> Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires
> February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> clisp-list mailing list
> cli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-list

-- 
-This is confidential to the parties I intend it to serve-
Fred Cohen & Associates              tel/fax: 925-454-0171
http://all.net/     572 Leona Drive    Livermore, CA 94550
Follow us via RSS at blog.all.net for aperiodic updates