Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I find DO -- which is part of the common
lisp spec -- is just as easy to use, is more flexible, and displays well under pretty-printing.
At 09:50 AM 6/11/98 -0500, Rob Farrow wrote:
>
>One suggestion is to use ITERATE instead of LOOP. For those of us who
>don't prefer the "non-sexp" way that loop keywords appear, Iter is a
>well used alternative. It is not common lisp but it is widely ported. It
>is also extensible, unlike Loop.
>
>(iter
> (for p in primes)
> (until (> p max))
> (never (zerop (rem i p)))
> (finally
> (rplacd last (list i))
> (setq last (rest last))))
>
>You will find ITERATE at most lisp FTP sites.
>
>
>Rob Farrow || There is no ultimate answer.
>Phone: 972/480-2698 MSGID: RCFJ || Only more revealing ways
>Email: <ti.com at farrow> || of looking at the question.
>
>
>
>Juanma Barranquero writes:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > (I'm using ACL4W release 3.0.2)
> >
> > Is there any way to configure the internal pretty-printer to do a
> > somewhat friendlier indenting *without* having to resort to the XP
> > pretty-printer?
> >
> > Currently, it (in re-indent, and not pretty-print, mode) indents one
> > of my test loops like that:
> >
> > (loop
> > for p in primes
> > until (> p max)
> > never (zerop (rem i p))
> > finally
> > (rplacd last (list i))
> > (setq last (rest last))))
> >
> > And that doesn't seem to be that At the very least, the forms in the
> > finally clause should be indented a few spaces, I think.
> >
> > If I use the pretty-print mode, I get:
> >
> > (LOOP
> > FOR
> > P
> > IN
> > PRIMES
> > UNTIL
> > (> P MAX)
> > NEVER
> > (ZEROP (REM I P))
> > FINALLY
> > (RPLACD LAST (LIST I))
> > (SETQ LAST (REST LAST))))
> >
> > which is even worse.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > /L/e/k/t/u
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i; see <
http://www.pgpi.com>
> >
> > iQA/AwUBNX+T2f4C0a0jUw5YEQIM+gCfVk7VsKtqgwaD0Iw2qem+bIxxU+wAoOz5
> > 1rLcMlmSKH2PnPWBHJQknlOV
> > =7Qzo
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>
>