Re: Iteration macros (was: [External] : Re: Closures - do you understand them well?)

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor wrote:

>> But it's also the case that for a _user_ the syntax of
>> `(cl-)loop' is complex - certainly much more complex than
>> the usual Lisp syntax. You essentially have to learn
>> another language - `loop' - to use it.
>
> That's what I meant, actually, yes.
>
> I'm not opposed to introducing specialized sublanguages
> (after all, I've done that myself for `pcase`, `setf`, and
> `bindat`, and I'm not opposed to things like `rx` or `peg`)

On the contrary, they are cool, perhaps one shouldn't have one
language completely made up of them, but here and there they
are interesting for sure, add spice ...

> but I think what annoys me in `cl-loop` is that you cannot
> understand each subelement independently because the effect
> of each element often depends on the presence/absence of
> other elements or the place where it appears, ...: it's not
> just a separate language but that language is not modular
> (and hence in my view is a bad language design).

But `cl-loop' has cool features as well, the multiple for
loops "for" example ...

Can't we have a `leap' (the Advanced Elisp to-the-Point Loop)
that implements all loops known to programming but without the
redundancy/intertanglement of keywords that in practice is
a problem using `cl-loop' and understanding it's
documentation ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal