Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:4551 comp.lang.scheme:2045
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Scheme as an Algol-like, not Lisp-like, language
Message-ID: <4881@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 4 Mar 91 10:00:56 GMT
References: <1991Feb15.191259.20090@aero.org> <1991Feb15.223520.17267@Think.COM> <13645@life.ai.mit.edu>
Followup-To: comp.lang.lisp
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 16

In article <13645@life.ai.mit.edu>, jaffer@gerber.ai.mit.edu (Aubrey Jaffer) writes:
> Someone suggested that `while' should be added to Scheme.  To my mind
> `while' is not different enough from `do' to be useful:

> (while <CONDITIONAL> <CODE ...>)  ==>
> (do () ((not <CONDITIONAL>)) <CODE ...>)

This may be a matter of taste and background.  I find DO inordinately
hard to read.  The fact that the loop condition is negated is sometimes
an advantage, but not always.  I have learned to like T's ITERATE which
appears in Scheme as named-LET (let's face it, that's what a Prolog
programmer _expects_ a loop to look like), but even so WHILE is clearer
at times.

-- 
The purpose of advertising is to destroy the freedom of the market.