loop

[David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>]

    Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1986  23:04 CST
    From: AI.BOYER@MCC.ARPA

    (b)  How do they rate the existing loop facility?  How about a
    scale of 0 to 4:

    4   Keep it just the way it is
    3   Permit/make a few minor changes
    2   Make the syntax more clispy (maybe parentheses or key words)
	      but keep the basic idea
    1   Try something really different, e.g. LetS
    0   Don't let anything like it pollute the language; use remove-if-not, etc.

0, 1, and 3 (or 0, 1, and 2) are not mutually inconsistent.  All three
of these should go on simultaneously.  In my opinion it would be insane
to design Common Lisp so that users were forbidden to use Loop,
forbidden to use LetS, or forbidden to use sequence functions.  Common
Lisp is a rich language and programmers should use whatever style they
find most expressive and most suited to their needs and those of the
group within which they work.

I think LetS has a lot of good ideas in it, although obviously it needs
refinement, which can come from widespread usage.  I was glad to see Dick
Waters spreading the word about LetS with his recent message.

Loop obviously needs refinement, too, although there is much disagreement
about exactly what that refinement should be.  I don't want to reopen that
topic now, because I don't have enough time available right now to say
anything intelligent, and I don't want to subject people to more unintelligent
off the cuff flaming about Loop, which never seems to accomplish anything.