From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jul 13 04:24:16 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id EAA02395
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 04:24:16 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA02389
          for <freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 04:24:13 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id EAA05266; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 04:23:29 -0700
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 04:23:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199507131123.EAA05266@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de
CC: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
In-reply-to: <199507130929.LAA09684@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> (message from Christoph Kukulies on Thu, 13 Jul 1995 11:29:12 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: make weirdness
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * ....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.

Um, I don't think it's make.  make is just concatenating the lines at
\'s and giving the result to sh.  I don't think make does anything
about semicolons, sh is perfectly capable of handling them:

$ sh -c "echo foo ; echo bar"
foo
bar

So, why didn't the old sh complain?  Of course I dunno.

Satoshi