future multi-threading for-loops

[dmitrey]

On Feb 5, 6:11 pm, Christian Heimes <li... at cheimes.de> wrote:
> castiro... at gmail.com wrote:
> > Multi-threaded control flow is a worthwhile priority.
>
> It is? That's totally new to me. Given the fact that threads don't scale
> I highly doubt your claim, too.

I would propose "for X IN A" for parallel and remain "for X in A" for
sequential.
BTW for fortress lang I had proposed "for X <- A" and "for X <= A" for
sequential/parallel instead of current "for X <- seq(A)", "for X <-
A", mb they will implement my way instead.