With all "do" respect, none of this syntax tinkering makes any sense to me.

I've been programming JS for 15 years and never noticed I needed a try
block that returns a value.

Long ago I programmed in a language called AED that had valued blockl,
which I was quite fond of, but never felt the need for that in JS for
whatever reason.

For looping over something and getting both the index and the element,
forEach does just fine for me; exiting in the middle of the loop is an edge
case. When I want to use `for`, it never bothered me to say `let elt =
arr[i];`.

What we need are powerful, simple, generic, clean notions that work
together to provide building blocks to allow succinct, logical, innovative
notational solutions to real-world problems.

My two cents.

Bob

---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com>
> To: Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>
> Cc: Isiah Meadows <impinball at gmail.com>, "es-discuss at mozilla.org" <
> es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:18:58 -0500
> Subject: Re: Generalize do-expressions to statements in general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150716/cd180d2a/attachment.html>

With all "do" respect, none of this syntax tinkering makes any sense to me.

I've been programming JS for 15 years and never noticed I needed a try
block that returns a value.

Long ago I programmed in a language called AED that had valued blockl,
which I was quite fond of, but never felt the need for that in JS for
whatever reason.

For looping over something and getting both the index and the element,
forEach does just fine for me; exiting in the middle of the loop is an edge
case. When I want to use `for`, it never bothered me to say `let elt =
arr[i];`.

What we need are powerful, simple, generic, clean notions that work
together to provide building blocks to allow succinct, logical, innovative
notational solutions to real-world problems.