@laund Thanks for the explanation, that actually made things clearer!
However, my original question is exactly about the lack of syntactic sugar that would make the syntax arguably less elegant for the sake of making it more readable.
Your example with `for` is a great one because it shows that similar "backwards" constructs are already present in many languages (incl. Rust). On the other hand I'd argue that the `in` keyword makes a significant difference here for readability. Similarly reading assignments by themselves makes perfect sense until they are written in a different context.