Re: request for a new function, say, `sequence'

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> 
writes:
>>  (dolist (c (sequence #X #Y 'list))
>>    ..operate-on-C)

> I agree that such code is pretty common, but I'd rather extend dotimes
> to allow something like (dotimes (c (cons X Y)) BODY).

I'm not sure it is a good idea to extend dotimes and make it
different from Commong Lisp.  And, using `sequence' is more
flexible, for instance, in the following case.

  ;; Combining diacritics
  (setq c #x300)
  (while (<= c #x362)
    (modify-category-entry (decode-char 'ucs c) ?^)
    (setq c (1+ c)))

  ;; Combining marks
  (setq c #x20d0)
  (while (<= c #x20e3)
    (modify-category-entry (decode-char 'ucs c) ?^)
    (setq c (1+ c)))

can be:

  (dolist (c (append (sequence #x0300 #x0362 'list)
                     (sequence #x20d0 #x20e3 'list)))
    (modify-category-entry (decode-char 'ucs c) ?^)

Of course, in this specific case, allowing FROM and TO in
modify-category-entry is better.

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden