On 2/17/14, 7:42 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Manu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I agree, to an extent. That's why I say if it is to be improved, I
guess it needs a new
name.
foreach eliminated almost all instances of for. I don't think anyone's
upset about
that.
Exactly, foreach is a new, better language construct, but we didn't
butcher for. I would love to see a nice solid proposal for 'match'.
A "match" statement that figures type patterns and introduce names and
all that - that might be more interesting (though being far from a game
changer). But that's not quite what has been proposed in this thread.
Andrei
