Maybe we don't need foreach ;-)

[Bruno Medeiros]

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

No it doesn't. It provides no semantic generalization/orthogonality *as 
well as* no syntactic generalization/orthogonality either. If you think 
of the D grammar, the 'foreach' rule is removed, but another, similar 
one is added to the 'for' rule alternatives.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D