[briancr]

Yeah this is why the syntax is customizable.. maybe it’s not optimal.

The example I gave was strange and I’ll have to change it. Not sure what I was trying to show there. The basic syntax is just:

for counter in <1, 5> print(counter)

backfor counter in <1, 5> print(counter)

It’s not overloaded because ‘for’ is basically a macro, expanding to ‘iterate, increment counter, break on counter > 5’ where ‘>’ is hard-coded. If ‘for’ was a fundamental operator then yes, there would be a step option and it would be factored into the exit condition.

You’ve got me thinking, there’s probably a way to overload it even as a macro.. hmmm…

[nextaccountic]

Just do for counter in <1, 5>.rev(), which would iterate in a reversed range.

IMO it's poinless to distinguish synctactically between iterating forwards and backwards, specially if you also support things like for counter in <1, 5>.map({ return args[1] * 2) to irate on even numbers (the double of each number), rather than having to define a fordoubled macro. I mean, adding method like map and rev to ranges is more orthogonal and composes better. (See for example iterators in Rust)

Not that I don't like syntactic flexibility. I am a big fan of Ruby's unless, for example

[briancr]

“IMO it's pointless to distinguish syntactically between iterating forwards and backwards” — I completely agree. It’s really a compiler-macro limitation that’s preventing me from doing this.. though I don’t have to go that route.

I think what you’re suggesting would require the <a, b> syntax to produce a proper iterator type, which it doesn’t currently do. That’s definitely worth considering — then you could attach methods, etc.

Thanks for the suggestion! I’ll think about the best way to fix this..