RE: Proposed change to BC iterator parameters

["amado.alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

"The current building blocks violate at least one important "ility":
readability.  You have to instantiate separately, and you have to split
the loop body out into a separate procedure, and you have to pass extra
paraameters around, all of which means that the pieces of the loop get
scattered about.  And you have to clutter the namespace with a name for
the loop body, which is not (usually) a natural abstraction on its own,
and doesn't deserve a separate name.  Or you have to use the "cursor"
style, which has problems I pointed out elsewhere." (Bob)

Ok, maybe we're entering a subjective area here. Personally I don't find these things more problematic than any proposal I've seen so far, "Java style interfaces" included. Usually I tackle the above problems using good old top-down development, encapsulating the implementation complexity inside meaninfully named subprograms. I'm happier with this solution than with any proposal I've seen so far. Except generic parameters ;-)