Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:32:57 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>, Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: empty lists in for Message-ID: <200003060932.CAA57921@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2000 11:15:14 %2B0200." <34889.952334114@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> References: <34889.952334114@axl.ops.uunet.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <34889.952334114@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> Sheldon Hearn writes: : On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:59:39 PST, Doug Barton wrote: : : > for name [ in word ] : > do : > compound-list : > done : > : > the "in word" is optional. Therefore: : : Hmmm, you're right. : : I must admit, though, that if the text is confusing enough to confuse : me, it's not entirely clear (even if I'm not the hardest person in the : world to confuse)! Are you sure that "word" here means one or more tokens, or zero or more tokens. If it means zero or more tokens, then 'for i in ; do ' is perfectly legal. You're not quoting what word means. The reason that I ask this is that I can't see why for i in ; do would be any different than for i in $foo; do when foo is empty. They are the same thing from at last my world view of the shell. Warner 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?200003060932.CAA57921>