> And (sorry, I'll try to keep replies in one message next time) "for" vs. > "forvals" does not exactly scream "keys" vs. "values", since "for" is only > about "keys" if you know ECMA-262 and expect the mystery meat of enumeration.
IMO, "forvals" is a non-starter, as is "foreach" or "for each". The "for" part of the syntax denotes quantification, and the stuff to the right of the variable denotes what is being iterated. In all cases, we are talking about universal quantification, so they should all be "for". > Which raises another point: meta-programmable iteration is not necessarily > about "values" and not "keys". A custom iterator could (and in the strawman > does) return key/value pairs. The whole keys vs. values dilemma is a false > one here. Indeed. There are an unbounded number of types of sequences that can be iterated over. Whether we provide 2 or 200 it will never be enough. Hence the need for a general, programmable iteration mechanism. Dave _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
