[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: minor proposed changed to guile doc
From: |
Kevin Ryde |
Subject: |
Re: minor proposed changed to guile doc |
Date: |
Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:29:24 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
first last <address@hidden> writes:
>
> I propose that the following section replace the
> current documentation for the DO function. It
> essentially replaces "test" with "terminate" and
> "expr" with "result".
I revised `do' per below in the cvs head, perhaps it's clearer.
-- syntax: do ((variable init [step]) ...) (test [expr ...]) body ...
Bind VARIABLEs and evaluate BODY until TEST is true. The return
value is the last EXPR after TEST, if given. A simple example
will illustrate the basic form,
(do ((i 1 (1+ i)))
((> i 4))
(display i))
-| 1234
Or with two variables and a final return value,
(do ((i 1 (1+ i))
(p 3 (* 3 p)))
((> i 4)
p)
(format #t "3**~s is ~s\n" i p))
-|
3**1 is 3
3**2 is 9
3**3 is 27
3**4 is 81
=>
789
The VARIABLE bindings are established like a `let', in that the
expressions are all evaluated and then all bindings made. When
iterating, the optional STEP expressions are evaluated with the
previous bindings in scope, then new bindings all made.
The TEST expression is a termination condition. Looping stops
when the TEST is true. It's evaluated before running the BODY
each time, so if it's true the first time then BODY is not run at
all.
The optional EXPRs after the TEST are evaluated at the end of
looping, with the final VARIABLE bindings available. The last
EXPR gives the return value, or if there are no EXPRs the return
value is unspecified.
Each iteration establishes bindings to fresh locations for the
VARIABLEs, like a new `let' for each iteration. This is done for
VARIABLEs without STEP expressions too. The following illustrates
this, showing how a new `i' is captured by the `lambda' in each
iteration (*note The Concept of Closure: About Closure.).
(define lst '())
(do ((i 1 (1+ i)))
((> i 4))
(set! lst (cons (lambda () i) lst)))
(map (lambda (proc) (proc)) lst)
=>
(4 3 2 1)