Changed accumulator test/bind order to bind/test

This means vectoring exits directly when the index loop variable =
:length.

It also means :final has to change.

README.md

@@ -4,75 +4,29 @@ goof-loops aims to be an amalgamation of the racket for loops and Alex Shinn's (
 
 Compared to foof-loop, some things are added. Apart from minor syntactic changes, subloops are supported. The best way is to show:
 
-```
+``` scheme
 (define lst '((1 2) dud (3 4) (5 6)))
 (loop ((:for a (in-list lst))
        (:when (pair? a))
        (:for b (in-list a))
        (:acc acc (summing b)))
   => acc)
+;; => 21
 ```
 
-This will sum all the sublists of lst and produce the result 21. Any :when, :unless, :break, :final, or :subloop clause will break out a subloop if any subsequent for clauses are found.
+ Any :when, :unless, :break, :final, :bind, :do or :subloop clause will break out a subloop if any subsequent for clauses are found.
 
 ## Beta warning
 
-This is beta quality software, and some minor details are likely to change. I have gotten most kinks worked out though.
+This is beta quality software, and some minor details are likely to change. I have gotten most kinks worked out though, but if I ever figure out how to include branching, the body-part of the macro will become a :body clause.
 
 ## Documentation
 
-The current WIP documentation can be found here: https://bjoli.srht.site/doc.html
+The current WIP documentation can be found here: https://bjoli.srht.site/doc.html (WARNING: for 0.1, not master)
 
 It is written in a weird markdown/xml chimaera. You can find it in documentation doc.xml (for the weird format) and documentation/doc.html for the slightly more accessible HTML format.
 
 
-## Differences from foof-loop
-
-### lexical
-
-foof-loop has a lot of code movement going on, and it can be hard to understand exactly where things end up. goof employs a more strict lexical hierarchy. The following is not possible in (chibi loop):
-d into only after the above clauses have been evaluated.
-
-### syntactical
-
-for-clauses are split into :for and :acc clauses. This is because the addition of subloops means we have to treat accumulators differently.
-
-while and until are removed in favour of :break.
-
-:when and :unless are added to better control when the loop body is executed (and accumulators accumulated)
-
-with-clauses are removed in favour of (:for var (in init [step [stop]])) in case of loop clauses, or (:acc var (folding init [step])) in case of accumulators.
-
-### Higher order loop protocol
-
-goof supports a higher order looping protocol, based on srfi-158 generators:
-
-    (loop ((:for food (in-list '(banana cake grape cake bean cake)))
-           (:for true? (in-cycle (in-list '(#t #f)))))
-       (display "The ") 
-       (display food)
-       (display " is a ")
-       (if true?
-          (display food)
-          (display "LIE!"))
-      (newline))
-
-In the above example true? never ends, but restarts every time the list is exhausted. 
-
-### Regressions compared to foof-loop
-
-only accumulating clauses are visible in the final-expression. This is due to sequence clauses not being promoted through to outer loops (since they should not keep their state if an inner loop is exited).
-
-Due to clause reordering, positional updates are not supported. If you want to update your loop vars, do so using named update (see below). 
-
-### changes
-
-    (with var [init [step [guard]]]) => (:for var (in init [step [stop-expr]])).
-
- guard was a procedure, but now it is an expression.
-
-    (with var 10 (- var 1) negative?) => (:for var (in 10 (- var 10) (negative? var)))
-
 ## Features
 
 ### Lexical order of clauses
@@ -87,6 +41,18 @@ Due to clause reordering, positional updates are not supported. If you want to u
   => acc)
 ```
 
+There is one caveat to this: some accumulating clauses (currently only vectoring with :length specified) have an implicit :break clause. This is tested AFTER the accumulation takes place. So: if the last position of the vector is set, the loop halts.
+
+``` scheme
+(loop ((:for a (in-list '(1 2 3)))
+       (:acc vec (vectoring a (:length 2)))
+       ;; implicit :break (= vec-index 2)
+       (:acc sum (summing a)))
+  => (values vec sum))
+;; => #(1 2) 1
+
+```
+
 ### Loop naming to make it "fold right"
 
 You can of course still have a larger control of when to loop by naming your loop:
@@ -131,6 +97,26 @@ The iterator protocol allows exposing the loop variables
       
 ;; => (1 : 2 : 3)
 ```
+In the above example, pair is bound to the pair where elt is the car.
+
+### Higher order loop protocol
+
+goof supports a higher order looping protocol, based on srfi-158 generators:
+
+``` scheme
+
+(loop ((:for food (in-list '(banana cake grape cake bean cake)))
+       (:for true? (in-cycle (in-list '(#t #f)))))
+  (display "The ") 
+  (display food)
+  (display " is a ")
+  (if true?
+     (display food)
+     (display "LIE!"))
+  (newline))
+```
+
+In the above example true? never ends, but restarts every time the list is exhausted. 
 
 ### :final is context sensitive (compared to Racket's #:final)
 
@@ -145,9 +131,9 @@ The iterator protocol allows exposing the loop variables
 ;; => ((1 . a) (1 . b) (2 . a) (2 . b))
 ```
 
-The racket counterpart would result in ((1 . a) (1 . b) (2 . a))
+The racket counterpart would result in ((1 . a) (1 . b) (2 . a)). This comes at :final clauses being less efficient than racket's #:final, but not by much. 
 
-### for-clauses can refer to eachother
+### :for-clauses can refer to eachother
 
 The iterative fibonacci loop is weird to write using for/fold. goof fixes this:
 ``` scheme
@@ -171,7 +157,18 @@ The iterative fibonacci loop is weird to write using for/fold. goof fixes this:
 ;; => 6 (1 2 2 3 3 4)
 ```
 
+### Pattern matching
 
+For clauses which bind "body bindings" (every one except (in ...)) can use pattern matching based on Alex Shinn's excellent match.scm.
+
+``` scheme
+(loop ((:for (key . val) (in-list '((a . 1) (b . 2) c . 3)))
+       (:acc sum (summing val)))
+  => sum)
+;; => 6
+
+This also works with :bind clauses.
+```
 
 ### Simple forms
 I also provide simplified forms for many common operations. Omitting :for is allowed, and :acc clauses are not allowed.
@@ -245,7 +242,7 @@ $5 = (let loopy-loop ((cursor (read)))
     (let ((a (car cursor)) (succ (cdr cursor)))
       (if (even? a)
         (cons a (loopy-loop succ))
-        (loopy-loop
+        (loopy-loop)))))
 
 
 ;; The code expansion of the partition procedure above produces
@@ -265,15 +262,23 @@ $5 = (let loopy-loop ((cursor (read)))
 
 ```
 
+
+## Differences from foof-loop
+
+This used to be a pretty vast collection of examples. goof-loof is now different enough from foof loop that you can't expect to carry your foof-loop skills over to goof-loop. There are however two notable regressions.
+
+### Regressions compared to foof-loop
+only accumulating clauses are visible in the final-expression. This is due to sequence clauses not being promoted through to outer loops (since they should not keep their state if an inner loop is exited).
+
+Due to clause reordering, positional updates are not supported. If you want to update your loop vars, do so using named update (see below). 
+
 ## Todo
 Tests!
 
 Finish documentation.
 
 ## foof, what a guy
-
+I have previously expressed some admiration for Alex Shinn and I will do it again. The source of chibi loop is extremely elegant, and all but the hairiest part is written in syntax-rules. Not only has he written my two favourite SRFIs, his input in all the other discussions I have seen is always on-point, pragmatic and generally fantastic. He neither knows of this project, nor embraces it in any way. Y'all should go look at the source of (chibi loop) though.
-I have previously expressed some admiration for Alex and I will do it again. The source of chibi loop is extremely elegant, and all but the hairiest part is written in syntax-rules. Not only has he written my two favourite SRFIs, his input in all the other discussions I have seen is always on-point, pragmatic and generally fantastic. He neither knows of this project, nor embraces it in any way. Y'all should go look at the source of (chibi loop) though.
 
 ## Licence
-
+goof started off by copying the iterator protocol of (chibi loop), and things sort of went downhill from there. Despite this, there is still quite a lot of code (especially in iterators.scm) that I didn't write myself. I only made it ugly. Thus goof is licensed under the same BSD-styled license Alex uses for chibi-loop.
-The same BSD-styled license Alex uses for chibi-loop.

goof-impl.scm

@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
     ((loop . rest)
      (%loop (loop . rest) . rest))))
 
+
 (define-syntax %loop
   (syntax-rules (=>)
     ((%loop o () => expr body ...)
@@ -142,9 +143,8 @@
     ((_ orig name l a v c r f ff ((cur-ub ...) . ub-rest)  ((:break expr) clauses ...) . body)
      (cl orig name l a v c r f ff ((cur-ub ... (:break expr)) . ub-rest) (clauses ...) . body))
     ;; user final
-    ;; This pushes a #t to the user when expression, thus forcing a subloop if a for-clause is found afterwards.
+    ((_ orig name l a v c r f ff ((cur-user ...) . user-rest) ((:final expr) clauses ...) . body)
-    ((_ orig name l a v c r f ff user ((:final expr) clauses ...) . body)
+     (final :acc ((fin) (expr)) cl-next/acc orig name l a v c r f ff ((cur-user ... (:break fin)) . user-rest) (clauses ...) . body))
-     (final :acc ((_) (expr)) cl-next/acc orig name l a v c r f ff user (clauses ...) . body))
 
     ;; User do - sideffecting stuff.
     ((_ orig name l a v c r f ff ((cur-uw ...) . uw-rest) ((:do expr ...) clauses ...) . body)
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@
          checks
          ((refs ... new-refs ...))
          (finals ... new-finals ...)
-         ff ((cur-ub ... (:break  new-checks) ... (:bind (accvar accupdate) ...)) . ub-rest) clauses . body))
+         ff ((cur-ub ... (:bind (accvar accupdate) ...) (:break  new-checks) ... ) . ub-rest) clauses . body))
     ;; We have ONE subloop!
     ((_ (new-lets ...) ((accvar accinit accupdate) ...) (new-checks ...) (new-refs ...) (new-finals ...)
         orig name

goof/iterators.scm

@@ -512,13 +512,13 @@
 ;; this is an internal "accumulator". It is used for final tests
 ;; :final in goof differs from in racket. It is lexical, meaning it
 ;; is tested where it is placed in the clauses, and any subloop is
-;; executed completely.
+;; executed until exhaustion.
 (define-syntax final
   (syntax-rules (:acc)
     ((_ :acc ((var) (test)) n . rest)
      (n ()
-        ((final #f test))
+        ((var #f test))
-        (final)
+        ()
         ()
         ()
         . rest))))