I didn't say it can't be figured out at all - please don't put works into my mouth.
Code is read much more than it's written and should be created for maximum comprehension. A simple one-line method call should be understandable without having to read any surrounding line.
>Best case scenario: ... all I have to do in your great big for loop is scroll up...
Once you have to scroll up, you are toast. I mean within a function, not within a loop.
There is a rule of thumb of how many things can the mind process at the same time: It is 7 plus-minus 2. You can treat the loop as one element in the function context and analyze the loop context at a different stack frame inside your head.
While working in a loop, you have to think about the list, the index and the element, so you are down to 4 more things you can do before "running out of memory". I think that's why the "for each" loop has been successful across many languages. I also think that that's why "i" is preferred over "index"; it is a known idiom that helps you think about the "i-th element" and saves one slot in your brain.
>Worst case scenario: the something is also badly named and I have to open up a debugger and set a trace to work out whether the iterable is people, channels, cows, or dinosaurs.
Eventually, anyone who has been around for a while inherits some abomination like that. It is not funny. However, no amount of coding standards prevent morons for doing their thing. I would not sacrifice an useful and well known artifact for the sake of idiot-proofing.
