Per Bothner scripsit:

> These procedures seem to have few or no valid use cases.
> In cases where they might be used, they don't provide much
> of an advantage over do or named-let.

While it's true that lockstep codepoint-in/codepoint-out processing is unfit
for many transformation jobs, it can handle simple transliterations like
ISO 9 (Cyrillic/Latin).  String-for-each is far more flexible: it can be
provide a string one codepoint at a time and accumulate results in a
string-port or similar device.

--
John Cowan        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan          cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values                Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.                      check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel                   --Cordelia Vorkosigan

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports