[shp0ngle]

The first link notes that they don’t plan to change the semantics of the range loop, but they might dis-allow referencing it

which is… uhh ok maybe?

But go is really trying to keep backwards compatibility so they won’t just change this

[masklinn]

Both changes break BC though. I see the underlying divergence of opinion as one of signalling: changing loop semantics would silently change code behaviour, even if it should usually be for the better there’s a bit of an 1172, whereas making the loop variable non-reference-able noisily breaks code which is almost guaranteed to be incorrect.