From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA25220; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:58:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA24953 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:58:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.kis.ru (post.kis.ru [195.98.32.206]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h54CwaT20283 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:58:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [195.98.54.162] (HELO heaven) by post.kis.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP id 2678532; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:58:35 +0400 From: "MikhailFedotov" To: "'Richard Jones'" , Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Why no 'step' in for loops? Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:58:35 +0400 Message-ID: <00a701c32a99$02436540$a917a8c0@merann.ru> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20030604123537.GE7004@redhat.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 'step':99 expressive:01 debug:01 emulate:03 ugly:05 functions:05 loop:06 loops:09 something:09 inside:10 100:89 mikhail:11 but:16 hard:16 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi! > Am I missing something? > > for i = 0 to 100 step 10 ... > > I know I can emulate it my having another let-binding inside > the loop, but that's just ugly and hard to debug. If your worries are about uglyness, then tail-recursive functions are more expressive. Mikhail ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners