Maybe I was not clear: having multiple syntaxes per se is not necessarily bad.
What is somewhat inconvenient is that since there is no good reason for having multiple syntaxes, some newcomers to the language will be confused, and will ask about this from time to time. Eg this is how this thread got started; this is not the first one and of course not the last. And of course then existing users will join in, and reason for =, in, both, or a third syntax. This is one of those tricky situations where it is hard to argue that the status quo is significantly inferior to other options, but since there is not a compelling reason for it either, the issue will be discussed from time to time. Which is of course OK, but if both = and in remain then the FAQ and the manual could clarify that neither is preferred, both are fine, and there is no semantic difference. Best, Tamas On Thu, Oct 29 2015, Tony Kelman <t...@kelman.net> wrote: > How is having multiple syntaxes for something automatically bad? I don't hear > people complaining that for loops are redundant when you could just do while > with a counter, or that enumerate is equivalent. Having style guidelines for > base to say when one choice makes more sense than another is fine, but this > thread's overblown.
