lexical for-in/for-of loose end

[Brendan Eich]

Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> water under the bridge...

Sure, but it matters for distinguishing my "inconsistent" advocacy of 
removing the hated initialiser, vs. keeping destructuring in for-in LHS.

Really, I'm ok with not supporting destructuring for-in LHS. That will 
require more spec work, but so does killing the initialiser for let and 
const as you noted. So, are we agreed? No initialiser, no for-in 
destructuring (with or without a declaring keyword)?

/be