If iterators are hidden magic, how are the following not hidden magic:

    for i, v := range someSlice { ...

Shouldn't that be eschewed as magic, and instead we should write:

    for i := 0; i < len(someSlice); i++ { v := someSlice[i]; ...

They both de-sugar to the same thing (well, now they do, it used to re-use the same 'v' in the first one, so it used to be subtly different, but they changed the language's hidden magic).

How is the channel loop not hidden magic?

    for v := range channel
    // magic for
    for {
      v, ok := <-channel
      if !ok { break }
    }

The iterator proposal is adding some sugar which is _less hidden_ than the current 'for range' loops, and people are complaining that's magic?