hat is sorely needed elsewhere.
> With time, I question whether this idea meets the necessarily high bar for
> changing syntax; indeed if the motivation is to keep something from the outer
> scope, it's trivial to make this happen with an outer `do`:
>
> ```
> do {
> var i
It recently occurred to me how nice it would be to be if we could avoid
declaring variables outside of loops that are only used inside them. I used
google’s site specific search (is that the canon way to search swift-evo?) and
only found one thread about this,
lt;https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170213/032076.html>
>
> It would be important for those who wish to rekindle this discussion first to
> review and summarize the preceding, and very technically illuminating,
> discussions.
>
>
> On Thu, May 25,
Writing functions without side effects is generally considered to result in
less error-prone code. In Swift today, if you want to segment your code into
pure and impure functions, you just have to police yourself, which is a very
un-Swifty thing to have to do. This problem is compounded when
Back in Swift 1.0, subscripting a String was easy, you could just use
subscripting in a very Python like way. But now, things are a bit more
complicated. I recognize why we need syntax like str.startIndex.advancedBy(x)
but it has its downsides. Namely, it makes things hard on beginners. If one
