minor language RFE(s)

[Linda Walsh]

If I am using a var as an index in a for loop
as in:

  for((i=0; i<10; ++i)); do : done

or 2) as an iterator as in

  for i in {1..10}; do : done

**and** such usage is in a function,

the default is to promote 'i' to 'global' status,
which is usually not needed nor desired (that doesn't mean
there aren't cases where one wants it global,
but I'm referring to the most common case).

The common workaround is to put the onus on the user
of 'i' to first declare it as local.  That's not easily
changed w/o potential chaos... however,

I was thinking ... lets say we had 1 or 2 abbreviation
keywords, at least 1 being "int=declare -i",
and ease-of-use "my=declare"

that could then allow the "declare" of the 'for' iterator
as local, in-line.

i.e. instead of predeclaring them w/'declare -i' or 'declare'
one could write:

  for((int i=0; i<10; ++i)); do : done

or 2)

  for int i in {1..10}; do : done
  for my i in {a..z}; do : done

---
Note: "int" and "my" would be
equivalent to "declare -i" and "declare" -- NOT
"local -i" or "local" so that such statements
could be moved in or out of functions w/out removing
the declaration.

Note2: 'my' is for convenience -- so one wouldn't
have to spell out
   for declare i in {a..z}...
which looks a bit ugly IMO...

Anyway was just thinking about this when writing
such loops, and renaming the iterator a few times -- and
having to make sure the declaration was changed in line
with the 'for' usage: requiring 2 separate lines of code
(that may or may not be adjacent to each other) in sync
is always a pain, not to mention occasionally error prone.

Anyway -- just a thought?

I've no idea of the difficulty level to do this, but
was thinking if not too difficult...  and if it is...
well keep it on a pile of ideas if bash ever got
refactored such that implementation became easier..?