Proposed new syntax

[Rustom Mody]

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