Why is it always C-style loops (usually used as counting loops) vs list iterator loops? Perl-style counting loops are always ignored. By your argument, one should use for for them. Others argue they are just optimisations of list iteration loops. It just goes to show how meaningless the choice of keyword is. In fact, you'll realise after a while that you never rely on the keyword anyway, so you should just use what's simpler ("for").

Actually, I do use "for" for C-style iterations and "foreach" for the more Perlish iterator loops! I like to use what "feels" right -- typing four more letters isn't a big deal. And like I said, people just learning to program in my experience tend to "get it" sooner with "foreach". Quite frankly, I wish they were distinct so we could discourage "for" loops and encourage "foreach" loops without any ambiguity -- useful when dragging those kicking and screaming, die hard C coders into the world of Perl!!! :-)

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Actually, I do use "for" for C-style iterations and "foreach" for the more Perlish iterator loops! I like to use what "feels" right

Did you read the post to which you replied? ("Why is it always C-style loops (usually used as counting loops) vs list iterator loops? Perl-style counting loops are always ignored.")

So what do you use for Perl-style for loops?

for (1..5) { say; }
foreach (1..5) { say; }
[download]

Quite frankly, I wish they were distinct so we could discourage "for" loops and encourage "foreach" loops without any ambiguity

For loops are very important and should not be discouraged in the least. Just the C-style ones are hard to read.