I can understand where you're coming from, but for me, foreach wouldn't be that far up the syntactic sugar wishlist, since it's not that much shorter than a regular FOR loop and you also have complications when you want to edit the thing you're iterating over.

If I had one PowerScript wish, it would be String Interpolation:

Being able to write

ls_find = $"long_column = {ll_long} and date_column = Date({ld_date}) and string_column = '{ls_string}'"

instead of

ls_find = "long_column = "+ String( ll_long ) + " and date_column = Date( " + String( ld_date ) + " ) and string_column = '" + ls_string + "'"

would save me juggling apostrophes and quotation marks and plus signs.

Hi.

Some first thoughts about that.

Powerbuilder is very different than most moderns languages in many aspects. For example c# does support:

string[] values = {"VALUE 1", "VALUE 2", "VALUE 3"};
foreach (string v in values) 
{
  Console.WriteLine(v);
}

What does the previous loop? It will let you work with each item in you array. Variable v exists only in foreach scope (this isn't supported in powerbuilder).  I'm not sure but I believe that lua also has this scope thing.

Foreach loop reminds me how cursor works. In a simpliefied way. It may be very useful when you know that you have to pass through the objects sequentially. I believe that for each loops are very useful when working with collections, but powerbuilder doesn't have collections.

I don't believe that there are scenarios you cannot handle because of for each loop lack. Also, those kind of enhancements would be useful only if accompanied by powerscript improvements.

Your second example is a simplified syntax of for loop as I understand.

Andreas.

I think it my be useful. Your second example is confusing though:

long ll_n

for ll_n in ls_array

//do something with ls_array[ll_n]

next

Should that not be "ll_array" instead of "ls_array"? I'm not too familiar with LUA, so maybe this is something I'm not able to fully understand.

Please request this as an "enhancement request" on the bug site: https://www.appeon.com/standardsupport/newbug

regards.