From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 5 20:54:31 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 4188A37BC2C for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:54:29 -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 UAA07348; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:54:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <38C33A03.A55DEFAF@gorean.org> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:54:27 -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> <38C2B805.EA899C32@gorean.org> <20000305204115E.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: > 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. Well, one of Chet's stated goals is to be as POSIX as possible. I agree that letting the standard speak for itself is a better idea, I was just giving a perspective. > 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. John Polstra already pointed this out, and Bash handles this like you would expect. There is a difference between expanding an empty list and trying to expand a list that isn't there. 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