New for loop syntax

[Tomttth]

Hello I would like to point out like instead of using the original for(;;) syntax, why can't we use a new syntax like:
for i = 0 wr i<n stp 2:
Console.print(I)
stp 2 would be converted to i = i +2
stp -2 would be converted to I = i-2
If we don't initialize i like:
for i wr i <n stp 2:
Console.Print(I)
Then by default i will have 0 as initial value
For getting a range function like syntax as in python we use:
for i frm 2 to 10:
Console. Print(i)
//which will print 2 to (n-1) 10
For each loop syntax for iterables Or arrays:
for i in arrays:
Console.Print(i)
This will cause for loop to infer type from array or list for i and then it will loop through array.
I think this is more intuitive

[jonmeow]

Consider how Python addresses this use-case:

for i in range(0, 10, 2):
    print(i)

Here, range is a function, not a fundamental language keyword like for or in. It returns an iterable object which for can use for values of i.

By moving functionality into libraries, we're able to keep the language simple and make it easier to evolve in the long term. By reusing a singular for syntax, we're reducing how much developers need to learn about how for works, although somewhat by shifting that understanding to the functions used. I'd expect Carbon is heading in this direction for the particular use-case.

[Tomttth]

Consider how Python addresses this use-case:

for i in range(0, 10, 2):
    print(i)

Here, range is a function, not a fundamental language keyword like for or in. It returns an iterable object which for can use for values of i.

By moving functionality into libraries, we're able to keep the language simple and make it easier to evolve in the long term. By reusing a singular for syntax, we're reducing how much developers need to learn about how for works, although somewhat by shifting that understanding to the functions used. I'd expect Carbon is heading in this direction for the particular use-case.

Yeah function approach will also be fine. 👍

[jonmeow]

@Tomttth I see you double posted this with #482. Please refrain from double posting comments, it's not helpful.