Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 8. Apr. 2017 um
15:42 Uhr:

>
>
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017, Philipp Stephani wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 8. Apr. 2017 um
> 06:46 Uhr:
> >
> >
> >       On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Drew Adams wrote:
> >
> >       >>> Or an addition to cl-loop that would allow doing something like
> >       >>>
> >       >>>    (cl-loop for m being the matches of "foo\\|bar"
> >       >>>             do ...)
> >       >>>
> >       >>> Then you could easily 'collect m' to get the list of matches
> if you want
> >       >>> that.
> >       >>
> >       >> Your proposals looks nice to me ;-)
> >       >
> >       > (Caveat: I have not been following this thread.)
> >       >
> >       > I think that `cl-loop' should be as close to Common Lisp `loop'
> >       > as we can reasonably make it.  We should _not_ be adding other
> >       > features to it or changing its behavior away from what it is
> >       > supposedly emulating.
> >       >
> >       > If you want, create a _different_ macro that is Emacs-specific,
> >       > with whatever behavior you want.  Call it whatever you want
> >       > that will not be confused with Common Lisp emulation.
> >       >
> >       > Please keep `cl-' for Common Lisp emulation.  We've already
> >       > seen more than enough tampering with this - people adding
> >       > their favorite thing to the `cl-' namespace.  Not good.
> >       Drew, i respect your opinion; but so far the change
> >       would just extend `cl-loop' which as you noticed has being already
> >       extended before.
> >       For instance, we have:
> >       cl-loop for x being the overlays/buffers ...
> >
> >       Don't see a problem to have those things.
> >
> >
> > I do. They couple the idea of an iterable with a looping construct, and
> such coupling is bad for various reasons:
> > - Coupling of unrelated entities is always an antipattern.
> > - For N iterables and M looping constructs, you need to implement N*M
> integrations.
> > Instead this should use an iterable, e.g. a generator function
> (iter-defun). cl-loop supports these out of the box.
> Then, you don't like (as Drew, but for different reasons) that we have:
> cl-loop for x being the buffers ...
>

I don't like it, but it's there and cannot be removed for compatibility
reasons, so I'm not arguing about it. I'm arguing against adding more such
one-off forms.


>
> but it seems you are fine having iter-by clause in cl-loop, which seems an
> Emacs extension (correctme if i am wrong).  So in principle, you are happy
> with adding useful extensions to CL, not just keep it an emulation as
> Drew wants.
>

Yes, I don't care about Common Lisp. The iter-by clause is less of a
problem than 'buffers' etc. because it's not a one-off that couples a
looping construct with some random semantics.


>
> Your point is about performance.


No, I care mostly about clarity, simplicity, and good API design, including
separation of concerns.


>   I am driven by easy to write code.
> Maybe you can provide an example about how to write those things using
> the iter-by cl-loop clause.


Sure:
 (require 'generator)
(iter-defun re-matches (regexp)
  (while (re-search-forward regexp nil t)
    (iter-yield (match-string 0))))
(iter-do (m (re-matches (rx digit)))
  (print m))
(cl-loop for m iter-by (re-matches (rx digit))
do (print m))