[Openmcl-devel] user-defined loop paths

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 18 Nov 2009, at 06:14, Samium Gromoff wrote:

> On a slight tangent, is there a perception that iterate could replace
> loop in the "next CL"?

If there is a perception of a "next CL" at all, then clearly no:  
there's a mass of code which uses LOOP all of which would break if  
some other looping construct was mandated instead.  I can't see people  
spending the effort to standardise yet another looping construct.

However the situation is really moot I think - there probably never  
will be a next CL, and in any case since iterate exists in a portable  
form so anyone can use it (one could have said the same for LOOP of  
course, but I think there were several variants and they may not have  
been as freely available).  Really the only issue with these things is  
that people still seem not to have worked out that using a flat  
package namespace is not really a very smart idea: maybe one day they  
will learn that lesson.