Kevin Smith wrote:
> ...
> matz / zetabits.com wrote:
> ...
> >So, which symbols are better for them?

Matz's suggestion is quite acceptable (there's not much that one can't
"get used to" if its meaning is well-defined, even if it doesn't look
like what was in use before).  But one thing I like about this
particular countersuggestion of Kevin's, if I understand it properly,
...

> loop { | a,b,c, ::d, ::e, ::f |

... is that it feels flexible, doesn't impose order in the sense of two
lists.  e.g., you could do something like ...

 | a, b, ::c, d |

... to respect whatever parameter order is suggested by other
circumstances,  while being able to specify individual scope rules.


 -- Mark