I don't believe that I would use the proposed enhancement to the for
statement. For me there is cognitive load reduction in using a
symmetrical method for all iterations even if they end up being a little
more complicated for individual cases. Usually, for me, I use streams.
Even the more complicated patterns such as the presented example will
hopefully be familiar because they are repeated in many places
throughout the code. Truly unusual or unique usages are hopefully very
rare.
To choose between old style for, enhanced for, or streams based on which
warts are to be avoided is just frustrating. Mixing idioms or required
mixing of idioms produces the least satisfying result. Was the use of a
particular idiom a necessity? A choice? Of no consequence? This gets
harder to decode with a larger number of available idioms.
I've seen library functions (usually statically imported) used for the
"(Iterble<T>) stream::iterator" construction that presented it as
"iterable(stream)". Not something I would use but it seemed clean enough
for those who wanted it.
Cheers,
Mike
