This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
russell.mcmanus@gs.com writes: > Tel <telford@eng.uts.edu.au> writes: > > > I have to agree that I always liked the way (setq) used to return > > the value in LISP and I see it as only bloody-mindedness on the part > > of some purist that guile forces everything to #<unspecified> > > (probably more the fault of R4RS than guile though). It would be > > nice to be able to use (set!) in (cond) (and) and (or) expressions > > rather than dick around with local variables. > > I think you should define a 'setq' macro, and then use it in your own > programs. > > > While we are at it I find (while) far more intuitive than (do) > > especially the stupid way that (do) specifies an expression that > > must be true to LEAVE the loop rather than to KEEP GOING. This is > > different to for() and while() in C. > > Doesn't C have a do-until? Anyway I think you can address the problem > for yourself by defining a macro with the desired semantics. > Bizzarely enough, it has do-while instead. However, Scheme's `do' doesn't even have the same semantics as `do-until', i.e. it does not always execute the loop body at least once. - Maciej Stachowiak