Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statements, possibly$#.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:18:08AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> I don't perceive why this is so common a need as to require special
> magic.  And for those cases, a three-part for(;;) loop handles it,
> since that tells you the index number directly.  Could someone
> explain why they need this?  It seems rare.

I don't think anyone *needs* this, it would just be a nice syntactic
sugar.  Haven't you ever coded a foreach loop only to realize later
that you need the index of the thing you've iterated to?  Wouldn't it
be nice to just have access to it rather than hoop-jumping a little?

-Scott
-- 
Jonathan Scott Duff
[email protected]