lexical for-in/for-of loose end

[Herby Vojčík]

Herby Vojčík wrote:
> I definitely think INIT should not have any "special" behaviour for 1st
> and for subsequent iterations. The semantics of the loop is then much
> more straightforward and less magical. So in case of these desugaring, I
> am for 0th iteration. To be able to read loop as { INIT; for
> (;TEST;NEXT) BODY }.

Of course, with let vars bound to closure per-body... but what I mean 
conceptually draw a line between initialization and loop body, and 
making each loop body obey the same rules. Even if it means head-closure 
will have no effect. But it will not have it regularly, in first as well 
in next iterations.

> Herby