Proposed new syntax

[Lew Pitcher]

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz>:
>> 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":
[snip]
> I guess we have C to blame for the redefinition of the word "for" in
> programmers' minds.

Sorry, but that use of "for" was part of the programmer's lexicon well 
before the invention of C. Computer languages have inherited and used it 
since (at least) 1948.

Dartmouth BASIC (1964) had "FOR"
  FOR I=1 TO 10

ALGOL-60 (1960) had "for"
  for i:=1 step 1 until 10

ALGOL-58 (1958) had "for"
  for i:=1(1)10

Superplan (1948) had "fur" (German for the English word "for")
  Für k=1(1)10 :

-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request