Still or again interest in optional iteration?

[sspringer (Stefan Springer)]

@xwu

A revised proposal should address the points the core team outlined in the rejection post

Yes, of course.

@xwu

for x in (try? operationThatMightThrow())? { ... }

The question is: Is an additional ? wanted here? try? operationThatMightThrow() is already an optional, so should the for-in loop be usable for any optional sequence without an additional ?, or should an additional ? be mandatory to tell the compiler that we know what we are doing (note that SE-0230: Flatten nested optionals resulting from `try?` is already implemented)? If the first is considered dangerous, then maybe the whole thing is not a good idea... At least for x in try? operationThatMightThrow() { ... } seems more logical to me.