[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DOTIMES or REPEAT, and old-style DO flushable?
- To: H at MIT-MC, KMP at MIT-MC, HENRY at MIT-MC
- Subject: DOTIMES or REPEAT, and old-style DO flushable?
- From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
- Date: Wed ,9 Apr 80 20:35:00 EDT
CC: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC, (BUG LISPM) at MIT-MC
The overwhelming response is to keep DOTIMES in the flavour of
a "DO" rather than a "REPEAT"; that is, the argument against
extending is based on the premise that there will have to be
"named" capability for DOTIMES.
Date: 8 April 1980 22:40-EST
From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
. . . we should consider
the case of named DOTIMES's -- this syntax would meet with
later problems if we decided we wanted something like that.
But at least some, myself included, feel the need for a very
simple REPEAT syntax
Date: 8 April 1980 22:12-EST
From: Henry Lieberman <HENRY at MIT-AI>
Instead, I propose REPEAT for this:
(REPEAT (NUMBER-OF-TIMES) ...)
This kind of repetition is so common
its worth having a clear syntax for it.
Date: 9 April 1980 13:24-EST
From: Jack Holloway <H at MIT-AI>
. . .
(and it's too bad we can't flush old-style DO so we
wouldn't need DO-NAMED) . . .
If you really want that, why not use the InterLISP name RPTQ
or something? Or, (DOTIMES (IGNORE X) ...) isn't so bad...
But since we're talking about it, has anyone given thought recently
to actually flushing the old-style DO syntax? It certainly becomes
less useful if you have DOTIMES and a REPEAT as mentioned above.
The maclisp world is under one edict to flush old styles: on
Sept 17, 1978 we introduced *CATCH and *THROW and announced the
impending collapse of maclisp CATCH and THROW. Is it time to
introduce RPTQ (or REPEAT) and take aim at old-style DO?