<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/10/2024 18:00, Archie Cobbs
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CANSoFxszRo3_Vx6LeU3GWRuwwijAnKWi8_OODuEO04Cvbc2tqg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:36 AM Maurizio
Cimadamore <<a href="mailto:maurizio.cimadamore@oracle.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">maurizio.cimadamore@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>What I'm trying to say is that if a developer is
confused (by the i++) on what "frozen" means for a loop
variable, they won't find any clarity in our explanation
that "lexically scoping trumps everything else". E.g.
whether a developer reads the STEP part of a loop as
part of the body (after the end of the body) or not is,
I believe, a very subjective thing - and one which
affects how any change we make in the area will be
perceived (IMHO).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Yes, if a developer is mentally cutting and pasting the
STEP onto the tail of the BODY then you're right, that makes
it appear as if the variable is not really "frozen".<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But the original basic for() proposal has the analogous
problem - i.e., if a developer is mentally cutting and
pasting the STEP onto the tail of the BODY, then in the
original proposal the variable no longer appears to be
"effectively final in the body of the loop".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So it seems to me that this proposal and the original
basic for() proposal suffer equally in that particular
respect, and such a developer is not going to be satisfied
by either of these new mental models.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, that is what I was trying to suggest - e.g. the
"generalization" might feel satisfying from an implementation (or
specification) perspective - but I'm not sure it will make things
more natural to grasp (for those developers who found the original
proposal confusing).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CANSoFxszRo3_Vx6LeU3GWRuwwijAnKWi8_OODuEO04Cvbc2tqg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Of course, as with every new proposed feature, we hear
a lot from developers who think that the new proposal
addresses a specific pain point that they thought should
never existed in the first place. But we tend to hear
less about a less vocal portion of users who might just
be silently ok with the status quo. Or maybe, in this
instance, we don't hear from them because they aren't
there (although, Tagir expressed some concerns [1], so I
have to assume there are such developers out there
_somewhere_ :-) )<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I too would like to hear more opinions... speak up,
naysayers :)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
:-)<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CANSoFxszRo3_Vx6LeU3GWRuwwijAnKWi8_OODuEO04Cvbc2tqg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Archie<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Archie L. Cobbs<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>