Targeting C

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

bearophile wrote:
> Pelle Månsson:
> 
>> Personally, I like this:
>> foreach (i; 0..10) list ~= i;
>> more. :)
> 
> While I like this more:
> for (i in 0 .. 10)
>     list ~= i;
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

I prefer this (Scala):
list = list ++ (0 to 10)

Okay, that's not really fair.  The direct port to Scala would be more like:
for { i <- 0 to 10 } list :::= List(i)

Ultimately, syntax only really matters greatly where it provides some significant 
advantage or detours from some significant disadvantage.  Kinda like the '$' in array 
indices.  Early on in D, we had no such creature, but I threw my support fully behind it 
because of my prior experience with ColdC (and λμ, etc) and its use of the same syntax. 
Generally speaking, when a given language has an inordinate amount of syntax in some 
activity, it is probably a good sign that activity is uncommon when the language is 
properly applied.  Conversely, a terse compact syntax is a good sign that's common usage. 
  Depends on "genre"... and now I'm ranting and have no idea why.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls