On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:13:24 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Gregory Ewing : > > I don't agree that the word "for" necessarily implies proceduralness. > > Programming languages stole the word from math, where it is > nonprocedural. > > Really, "for" is just a preposition. In Algol, for example, > proceduralness was not in the word "for" but in "do": > > for p := 1 step 1 until n do > for q := 1 step 1 until m do > if abs(a[p, q]) > y then > begin y := abs(a[p, q]); > i := p; k := q > end > > <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL#ALGOL_60> > > Pascal is similar: > > for i:= 1 to 10 do writeln(i); > > <URL: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/pascal/pascal_for_do_loop.htm> > > As is sh: > > for i in *.py; do > mv "$i" "$i.bak" > done > > Common lisp uses "do" as well: > > (setq a-vector (vector 1 nil 3 nil)) > (do ((i 0 (+ i 1)) ;Sets every null element of a-vector to zero. > (n (array-dimension a-vector 0))) > ((= i n)) > (when (null (aref a-vector i)) > (setf (aref a-vector i) 0))) => NIL > > <URL: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw60/CLHS/Body/m_do_do. > htm> > > I guess we have C to blame for the redefinition of the word "for" in > programmers' minds.
And C’s for is just a while with a ‘finally’ clause for its inner block -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
