Maybe we don't need foreach ;-)

[Bill Baxter]

Reiner Pope wrote:
> I don't see much reason to change the syntax here, since:
>  - it provides no generalizations/abstractions

It generalizes 'for'.

>  - it only saves 4 keys of typing

It's more about saving a keyword in the grammar than saving typing.

>  - it isn't easier to read; perhaps even *harder* (you don't know 
> whether it is a custom iterator or a 'normal' for loop)

Yeh, that's sort of true, but 90% of regular for loops have a ++ or -- 
or += or .next() in them at the end that make them pretty easy to 
recognize as regular for loops.  Any for loop that doesn't fit that 
pattern already takes some scrutiny to figure out.

>  - Walter's right: it could increase bugs, such as:
> 
>      for (char[] key, char[] value; aggregate)
> 
>         which looks similar to
> 
>      for (char[] key; char[] value; aggregate)

That'd be a syntax error.   You cannot declare variables in the second 
clause of a standard for-loop.  You can only have an Expression there.

But yeh, I'm sure you can cook up some example where you change one 
comma to a semicolon and both are legal.

Anyway, the real answer is trailing delegates.  This wasn't a serious 
proposal for change, more just musing on what could have been.  foreach 
didn't really have to be a keyword, I don't think, that's the only 
observation I was trying to make.

--bb