Re: Ugly inconsistence betw. for and for/in

On 05.09.25 18:10, OCsite wrote:
[...]
> ===
> def foo // [1]
> ...
> for (def foo in ....) // would not use [1], would scope a new variable 
> instead
> for (foo in ...) // would use [1]
> ===
> 
> If you are cosy with breaking backward compatibility, well, you should 
> do /this/ change, not /that/ one which breaks it for no benefit at all.

the first for-loop must not compile because it would invalidate how 
local variable scoping works in general: we do no allow shadowing of 
local variables, every local variable name must be unique!

But that is besides the point of if the for-loop spawns a new local 
scope or not.

bye Jochen