From @masak

<masak> rakudo​: say (map -> $a, $b { $a }, 1..5).perl; for 1..5 -> $a,
$b {} [12​:05]
<p6eval> rakudo 10f223​: OUTPUT«[1, 3]␤StopIteration␤in Main
(/tmp/2qZBAsxsOE​:2)␤»
* masak submits rakudobug

I'd like to take this opportunity to express my strong dislike for the
'StopIteration' error. I'd much rather see the for loops siltently
drop values (as map seems to do above), than map emulating the
irritating behaviour of for. But I guess it's ultimately a question
for p6l.

From @masak

On Tue Jun 23 03​:12​:32 2009, masak wrote​:

<masak> rakudo​: say (map -> $a, $b { $a }, 1..5).perl; for 1..5 -> $a,
$b {} [12​:05]
<p6eval> rakudo 10f223​: OUTPUT«[1, 3]␤StopIteration␤in Main
(/tmp/2qZBAsxsOE​:2)␤»
* masak submits rakudobug

I'd like to take this opportunity to express my strong dislike for the
'StopIteration' error. I'd much rather see the for loops siltently
drop values (as map seems to do above), than map emulating the
irritating behaviour of for. But I guess it's ultimately a question
for p6l.

Here's yet another difference between map and for​:

<masak> rakudo​: for 1,2,3 -> $a, $b = $a { say $b }
<p6eval> rakudo e976f2​: OUTPUT«2␤StopIteration␤in Main (/tmp/5WCiLsPJDY​:0)␤»
<masak> rakudo​: map -> $a, $b = $a { say $b }, 1, 2, 3
<p6eval> rakudo e976f2​: OUTPUT«1␤2␤3␤»

Again, I like map's behaviour much better.

@masak - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From @moritz

Both behave the same now, (printing 2\n3\n), because for is implemented
in terms of map.

@moritz - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'