Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote: > Assuming that semicolon is no longer going to be a supercomma in these > situations, does that mean that we C addicts can have C<for> back to do > the kinds of loops that we mean when we say "for loops"?
I hope not. > I really don't much like the C<loop> keyword. > > for ($i = 1; $i < 10; $i++) { ... } > > (Or is there still some syntactic ambiguity that I haven't thought of?) No. It's more a cognitive ambiguity. One of the goals was to reduce (or preferrably eliminate) syntactic homonyms in Perl 6. You'll notice that one of the C<eval>s has been renamed to C<try>. And one of the C<x>s has become C<xx>. And I sincerely hope that the C<select>s and C<do>s will be similarly disambiguated. For several discussions of why this particular feature of natural languages *doesn't* map well onto programming languages, see: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/#Human_Factors_in_Programming_Languages Damian (an unrepentant homonymophobic)