Successor syntax for for comprehensions

[LPTK]

@MarkCLewis

I assume that if there were more than two, the pattern would just be ((x, y), z) ← xs.zip(ys).zip(zs) or something like that? It seems like a logical extension that might not even require additional logic if done correctly.

I’d argue that (x,y,z,...).zipped should be used for more than 2 zipped collections (also, it should be generalized to tuples of more than 3 elements, which is currently the limit). Unfortunately, tuple .zipped it does not seem to work with iterators (neither in 2.12 nor in 2.13).

So in fact, along with the new parallel comprehension syntax, I’d also introduce a lazyZipped family of methods for tuples of arbitrary sizes.