Re: parallel stepping in loop, but what about termination tests?

Pascal,

Thank you for pointing at a missed error in CLISP and another case which will help me
make up my mind about the intermingling of stepping and termination tests in LOOP.

>>(loop for x across "abc" and for z on (list 1) do (princ x) finally (return (cons x z)))
>The first form seems to be a syntax error; other implementations signal it:
>Z is an unknown keyword in FOR or AS clause in LOOP. Current LOOP context:
>  FOR X ACROSS "abc" AND FOR Z ON (LIST 1).
Oops. I'll have to check whether CLtL2 allowed my bogus syntax.
 
>One case where it makes a difference is:
>$ clall -r  '(loop for x across #((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9)) and z := nil :then x finally (return (list :x x :z z)))'
>CLISP                           --> (:X (7 8 9) :Z (7 8 9))
>[All other OSS implementations] --> (:X (7 8 9) :Z (4 5 6))

Ugh, room for improvement. I don't like the fact that the final x and z do not stem from
The same iteration, even though ANSI-CL LOOP probably can't forbid CLISP's result.

	Jörg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
clisp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-devel