From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-users-return-20797-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 26716 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2015 09:28:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Users List <zsh-users.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-users@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-users-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 20797
Received: (qmail 11180 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2015 09:28:15 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:22:00 +0200
From: Marc Chantreux <khatar@phear.org>
To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-users@zsh.org>
Subject: a little alternative syntax improvement?
Message-ID: <20151020092200.GA7518@ramirez.u-strasbg.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP

hello,

this message is just a proposal but i don't know how naive it is.
i just give it a try.

alternative syntax for for control statements are really pleasant
because the lhs uses the good context

      # lhs           # rhs
while ((count-- > 0)) { do_something }
while [[ -e $file ]]  { do_something }

and could be a bit more if the rhs would be context sensitive also:

for the moment, you need to write

    while {next_file} {((
        older = last < older ? last : older,
        count++
    ))}

when it would be more readable and consistent to write

    while {next_file} ((
        older = last < older ? last : older,
        count++
    )) 

my two cents.

regards
-- 
Marc Chantreux (eiro on github and freenode)
http://eiro.github.com/
http://eiro.github.com/atom.xml
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet"
    -- Abraham Lincoln