From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 5 11:39:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903B637BAF4 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:39:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (doug@master [10.0.0.2]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04338; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:39:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <38C2B805.EA899C32@gorean.org> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:39:49 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT-0302 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: W Gerald Hicks Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: empty lists in for References: <57223.952177003@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> <20000305093539F.jhix@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG W Gerald Hicks wrote: > > > > bash and ksh complain about unexpected ';'. > > > /bin/sh (FreeBSD) thinks it's ok and does nothing. > > > Which behaviour is more POSIXly correct? > > > > > Neither bash nor ksh claim to be particularly POSIX compliant. our > > /bin/sh does. I seem to remember POSIX being ambiguous on this one, but > > my books are at the office. If you haven't gotten a more conclusive > > answer by Monday, mail me and I'll look it up. > > I much prefer the current behavior and believe there may be many things > which depend on it. Given that Bash in both standard and POSIX mode complains about 'for i in ; do echo $i; done', I would say that it's not POSIX compatible. What could/does depend on this behavior "working?" Doug -- "Welcome to the desert of the real." - Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, "The Matrix" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message