I don&#39;t think that to focus on the name of the keyword is so important. However I also don&#39;t like &#39;acc&#39; for at least 2 reasons: first I don&#39;t like abbreviation and even worse being that keyword the abbreviation of another already existing (even if deprecated) one can generate confusion.<br>
<br>&#39;for&#39; can be a better option even if we will have to use them in statements like &quot;from for(...)&quot; that could be a bit odd and cacophony.<br><br>For a similar (even if not so powerful) feature in my lambdaj library I used &#39;aggregate&#39;, that maybe could be closer to what the keyword actually should be used for.<br>
<br>In the end, my favorite option is &#39;fold&#39; for a few reasons:<br><br>1. It&#39;s short<br>2. IMHO sounds slightly better than &#39;for&#39; in the contexts where we are going to use it<br>3. People who knows a bit of functional programming is familiar with the meaning of &#39;fold&#39; that is also quite similar to what the new feature will do even if, once again, our one will be more powerful and rich than the &quot;classic&quot; fold<br>
<br>Mario<br>