Re: Semantics of let

[peter@robots.oxford.ac.uk]

It's pretty obvious I misunderstood the semantics of multi-assignment, Iwas
rather hoping it'd be a ``parallel'' assignment, so that a scheme-like let
could be implemented using it.  I was rather too hopeful that Paul'd 
twiddle the grammar to provide the necessary hierachical lists needed to
implement this parallel assignment.

However I still do like ``;'' to mean sequential composition, and
writing
	let (i ...; j ...)
is neater than
	let (i ...) let (j ...)

If we keep the semantics of let/local, maybe we should change the semantics
of for so that
	for (i ...; j ...)
is equivalent to
	for (i ...) for (j ...)

because the current behaviour can be done as Paul suggested with
	for (i j = a 1 b 2 c 3) echo $i $j
equivalent to the current
	for (i = a b c; j = 1 2 3) echo $i $j

Just a few suggestions, to be honest I'm not too bothered either way, whether
we have let/let*, local/local*, for/for* is all ok with me.

Pete.