[dnautics]

man if I were andrew I'd just rename for to "foreach", because this is a huge complaint and source of confusion.

[kzrdude]

Seems fine to me. Rust has a "foreach" which is named for, working ok. Of course Rust has ranges as iterators, so it's not necessarily noticed that "there is no numerical for" but it works.

[masklinn]

> Rust has a "foreach" which is named for, working ok.

Also ruby / python.

Don't see the point of a C-style for loop in a modern language, reusing the keyword is perfectly sensible (even more so as many which have both use the same keyword).

C# actively weirds me out every time from having both for and foreach, complete waste of brainspace.

[anonymoushn]

It seems fine to just delete it if it's only ever going to work on slices and arrays