@timothee: A question regarding your <https://github.com/nim-lang/RFCs/issues/232>
Does this RFC allow for recursive iterators? From skimming over the RFC i doubt that the aliasing approach allows for truly 1-st class iterators that support recursion or can be passed as proc arguments at runtime. I think there is room for two types of Nim iterators: "iterator lite" \- zero cost abstraction, compile time code-substituting and for-loop inverting like the current inline-iterator; and "iterator full" \- closure based context-switching coroutine allowing for multiple exit (yield) and (re)entry points. Both have their place. Neither is being satisfactory supported in current Nim.
