From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 23 22:52:50 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id WAA02580 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 22:52:50 -0700 Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA02571 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 22:52:46 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA04646 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for freebsd.org!hackers); Mon, 24 Jul 1995 00:25:07 -0500 Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA00544; 23 Jul 95 14:43:24 CDT (Sun) Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id OAA00535 for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 14:43:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 14:43:23 -0500 From: Peter da Silva Message-Id: <199507231943.OAA00535@bonkers.taronga.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make weirdness References: <199507131123.EAA05266@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk In article <199507131123.EAA05266@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * ....and overlooked that it was not quite correct shell syntax (do should not > * be followed by a semicolon). I wonder why the old make let it pass though. >So, why didn't the old sh complain? Of course I dunno. The old sh didn't complain because an empty statement is a perfectly valid statement. I did some checking: it looks like complaining about this syntax is a System-V-ism. IMHO ignoring empty statements is the right thing to do, from a language perspective. 1.1.5.1: $ ; ; ; ; ; $ BSDI: $ ; ; ; ; ; $ 2.0.5 (freefall): $ ; ; ; ; ; Syntax error: ";" unexpected OSF/1 (Digital UNIX): $ ; ; ; ; ; $ SunOS 4.1.3: $ ; ; ; ; ; syntax error: `newline or ;' unexpected Solaris: $ ; ; ; ; ; syntax error: `newline or ;' unexpected SVR3: $ ; ; ; ; ; syntax error: `newline or ;' unexpected SVR4: # ; ; ; ; ; syntax error: `newline or ;' unexpected