DOTIMES

["Guy L. Steele, Jr." <GLS at MIT-MC>]

    Date: 9 April 1980 13:24-EST
    From: Jack Holloway <H at MIT-AI>

    Besides the cogent argument in favor of a named DOTIMES
    (and it's too bad we can't flush old-style DO so we
    wouldn't need DO-NAMED), letting (DOTIMES X ...)
    mean (DOTIMES (G3453 X) ...) has the extremely nasty
    property that there is a context which wants a value
    in which you can only specify it by means of a variable,
    and not by an expression.  This is like the old
    computed-GO or STATUS-MACRO kludge, only backwards.
    If you really want that, why not use the InterLISP
    name RPTQ or something?  Or, (DOTIMES (IGNORE X) ...)
    isn't so bad...

Sorry, guys -- this was from me.  -- GLS


Date: Tue ,15 Apr 80 00:33:00 EDT
From: "Guy L. Steele, Jr." <GLS at MIT-MC>
Subject: DOTIMES
cc: BUG-LISPM at MIT-AI, BUG-LISP at MIT-AI

    Date: 9 April 1980 13:24-EST
    From: Jack Holloway <H at MIT-AI>

    Besides the cogent argument in favor of a named DOTIMES
    (and it's too bad we can't flush old-style DO so we
    wouldn't need DO-NAMED), letting (DOTIMES X ...)
    mean (DOTIMES (G3453 X) ...) has the extremely nasty
    property that there is a context which wants a value
    in which you can only specify it by means of a variable,
    and not by an expression.  This is like the old
    computed-GO or STATUS-MACRO kludge, only backwards.
    If you really want that, why not use the InterLISP
    name RPTQ or something?  Or, (DOTIMES (IGNORE X) ...)
    isn't so bad...

Sorry, guys -- this was from me.  -- GLS