Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:37:08 -0800 From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: empty lists in for Message-ID: <38C335F4.8A9C2499@gorean.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002212205230.36736-100000@iclub.nsu.ru> <57223.952177003@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> <20000305093539F.jhix@mindspring.com> <38C2B805.EA899C32@gorean.org> <200003060430.UAA85900@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra wrote:
>
> In article <38C2B805.EA899C32@gorean.org>,
> Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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?"
>
> It works for the realistic cases that might actually be useful. E.g.,:
>
> x=
> for i in $x; do
> echo $i
> done
>
> works fine. I don't think it matters very much that the pathological
> case "for i in ; ..." doesn't work.
Agreed on all counts. By "this behavior" I was referring to the
example.
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38C335F4.8A9C2499>