Re: for builtin violates Single UNIX Specification

[Chet Ramey]

> > What are you talking about?  The bash behavior you demonstrate follows the
> > cited standard exactly.  If the `in' reserved word appears, it *must* be
> > followed by a non-empty word list.
> 
> I'm sorry, you are right.
> 
> I was mislead by the ksh93 behaviour, which accepts the form
> 
>    for i in; do:; done
> 
> So there is no standard-violation in bash  :)
> 
> On the other hand: is that legal what ksh93 does?

Not strictly, no.  On the other hand, the drafts of the new revision to
the POSIX standard make that syntax legal, and the next release of bash
will conform.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
( ``Discere est Dolere'' -- chet)

Chet Ramey, CWRU    chet@po.CWRU.Edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/