> Specifically, a construct in a language is called syntactic sugar if it can be removed from the language without any effect on what the language can do: functionality and expressive power will remain the same. For instance, in the C language the a[i] notation is syntactic sugar for *(a + i).[1]
That "functionality" would remain the same is sort of given. If that's all there is to it, then it becomes a sort of game where we end up being able to add, store and jump to memory locations.
The *expressive power* portion of the definition is the part that I was reaching for. For example, the intent of "i = i +1" could not be clearer. "++i" is shorter and sweeter for the programmer, but it is not clearer and it is not more expressive.
However, "for" loops express an iteration over a set of values, which is an _expression_ that is different than "do this block of code while this condition remains true" which is different than "goto this label."
