_why wrote:

> You folks can argue all you want about the look of the `for` but
> you're forgetting the utility of having two nice choices. 

Tx that's why I said 'for' can be more readable - even though I know nobody in 
person aware of its existence.

 > One which
> creates scope and one that doesn't.  Don't let this Roodi lib boss
> you around!  You can make up your own mind about things.

Classic 'lint' comes with switches to STFU some warnings, thus making others 
more useful...

-- 
   Phlip