In Exegesis 4, Damian writes: <blockquote> It's important to note that writing:
for @a; @b -> $x; $y {...} # in parallel, iterate @a one-at-a-time as $x, and @b one-at-a-time as $y is not the same as writing: for @a, @b -> $x, $y {...} # sequentially iterate @a then @b, two-at-a-time as $x and $y </blockquote> Now, I love that the for loop can do both of these things, but the subtlety of the difference in syntax is likely, IMO, to lead to very difficult- to-find bugs. It's very easy to miss that I've used a comma when I meant to use a semicolon, and vice versa. And what's the mnemonic again? Is there any way the syntax could be made different? Could the two approaches be differently named? Perhaps the first could be C<foreach>, and the second could be C<for>, and they could both use commas. Or am I just being paranoid? Regards, David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]