Comments on X3J13 document 88-007, "The Loop Facility"

[wfs@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Bill Schelter)]

I would like to see a copy of the proposed standard.  How does one obtain
it?

Some comments on Moon's comments followed by some additional suggestions:

    2-45 (loop for e being each element of s ...) is a really ugly way to
    say to
    iterate through a sequence.  This is left over from Maclisp, where there
    was not such a well-developed concept of a sequence data type as in Common
    Lisp.  Six years ago I proposed the syntax (loop for e across s ...) for
    this; why not adopt it?

I agree with this.   A very bad feature of the `being' syntax
is that it breaks the "alternating keyword and  variable" syntax, which I find
very useful to users in reading a loop.  

I would just as soon see

(loop for e in-sequence s ..

as being more descriptive rather than `across' but that is not too important.



Bill Schelter