Turns out that (for* ([x (in-list lst)] [i (in-naturals)]) ...) is most likely not what’s intended :face_palm:

Is in-indexed forgotten? `(for ([(x i) (in-indexed (in-list lst))]) … )

And which version is fastest?

Yeah, for some reason I always forget about in-indexed. I don’t think there should be any significant difference in speed between the two though.

I also tend to use in-naturals

I find it more natural :stuck_out_tongue:

Just realized that it’s ok to write .0 instead of 0.

That should be for and not for*, right?

yes :slightly_smiling_face:

Apropos breaking update. A new version of MathJax hit the interwebs today:

Sigh…

The formula is slightly (just slightly) bigger than usual.

At least you can’t miss it

The fix was to change > src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mathjax@"@"3/es5/tex-svg-full.js" to > src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mathjax@"@"3.0.1/es5/tex-svg-full.js"

Well - for now - I still need to get to work with the new version of course.