From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 5 20:37:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DEB137BBE7 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:37:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhix@mindspring.com) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA12359; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:37:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhix.mindspring.com (user-33qtgqb.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.195.75]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA32325; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:37:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jhix@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jhix.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA57965; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:41:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhix@mindspring.com) To: Doug@gorean.org Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: empty lists in for In-Reply-To: <38C2B805.EA899C32@gorean.org> References: <57223.952177003@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> <20000305093539F.jhix@mindspring.com> <38C2B805.EA899C32@gorean.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.1 on XEmacs 21.1 (Bryce Canyon) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20000305204115E.jhix@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:41:15 -0800 From: W Gerald Hicks X-Dispatcher: imput version 990905(IM130) Lines: 41 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG From: Doug Barton Subject: Re: empty lists in for Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:39:49 -0800 > 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?" > Even though it's my preferred shell, I certainly wouldn't say that Bash is any sort of standard, certainly not in the POSIX sense. Imagine processing a possibly empty list constructed from a 'make' expansion... Without this behavior one would have to code a guard of some sort around the 'for' construct. If everything is checked through make release, I would hold little objection to a change *after* 4.0-RELEASE. That includes all conditional paths through make release ... -- Jerry Hicks jhix@mindspring.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message