Proposed new syntax
Lew Pitcher
lew.pitcher at digitalfreehold.ca
Thu Aug 17 11:11:29 EDT 2017
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz>:
>> I don't agree that the word "for" necessarily implies proceduralness.
>
> Programming languages stole the word from math, where it is
> nonprocedural.
>
> Really, "for" is just a preposition. In Algol, for example,
> proceduralness was not in the word "for" but in "do":
[snip]
> I guess we have C to blame for the redefinition of the word "for" in
> programmers' minds.
Sorry, but that use of "for" was part of the programmer's lexicon well
before the invention of C. Computer languages have inherited and used it
since (at least) 1948.
Dartmouth BASIC (1964) had "FOR"
FOR I=1 TO 10
ALGOL-60 (1960) had "for"
for i:=1 step 1 until 10
ALGOL-58 (1958) had "for"
for i:=1(1)10
Superplan (1948) had "fur" (German for the English word "for")
Für k=1(1)10 :
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request
More information about the Python-list
mailing list