On Mar 8, 2000, "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 11:09:07AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
> : | eval set $list
> : | for elt in "$@"; do
> : | echo $elt
> : | done
> : |
> : | So there. Now you won't get any more suggestions from me :)
> :
> : I agree, this is perfect.
> Actually, I was informed by John W. Eaton through private email that
> the 'in "$@"' part is the default and can therefore be dropped.
Yep, as long as you move the `do' to the next line. Some shells can't
parse `for elt; do' :-(
> My opinion on this (which is influenced by my personal sh-scripting
> conventions) is that "for elt; do" is a bit less readable than the
> full thing.
ACtually, to be fully equivalent to `for elt \n do', you must write:
for elt in ${1+"$@"}; do
Some shells will expand "$@" to "" even if $# = 0.
But then, this doesn't apply here, since we know we've got at least
one argument.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Enjoy Guaranį
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company aoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and Evangelist CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Write to mailing lists, not to me
