[racket] generator performance

Eli Barzilay wrote at 09/16/2012 11:15 AM:
> If you need performance, your best bet is probably to translate things 
> to `for...' loops if possible.

In 5.3, can the "for"-something constructs ever result in faster code 
than is possible with equivalent code using, say, named-"let"?

So far, it seems that handwritten code using *simple* Racket primitives 
matches or beats performance of higher-level Racket constructs.  Which 
is comforting.

Neil V.