Re: unexpected behavior of "do for"

[Tait <gnu...@t4...>]

> So yes, there is an inconsistency.  There are currently three "for"
> constructs
>   do for
>   set for
>   plot for
> 
> The first two of these always iterate at least once; the third one does not.
> The documentation is silent on the intended behavior.
> So which to change, "plot for" or both the others?

Given that it's called "for" I'd say the principle of least surprise
dictate that it act consistently with "for" as used in most programming
languages (e.g. C).