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)
