Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Slow Loop (alternatives in lisp?)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 01:24:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <20240722182106.323@kylheku.com>
References: <v7m8d9$p1e4$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 03:24:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e723cea1cdfb5e1d326eb8834436c3e";
	logging-data="950529"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5mqGKzRLyuG5g5vw23DXH/lrOrTolJ7I="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jeFOci+X1/nfmsDcVID9UfIj6ZE=
Bytes: 1563

On 2024-07-22, B. Pym <Nobody447095@here-nor-there.org> wrote:
>> * there is already a WHILE in Common Lisp. No need to invent a new one:
>> 
>> (loop while (foo-p) do .... )
>
> Gauche Scheme
>
> (while (read) (print "True enough."))
> 2
> True enough.
> #t
> True enough.
> 'yes
> True enough.
> #f
>
> (while (read) => x (print x " is truer than you think."))
[ ... ]
> Paul Graham:
>
> I consider Loop one of the worst flaws in CL, and an example
> to be borne in mind by both macro writers and language designers.

But the above => cruft is exactly like LOOP clause syntax.

It might as well be

 (while (read) with x do (print ...))

More Lispy way:

  (whilet ((x (read)))
    ...)