2021年2月16日(火) 21:41 Oğuz <oguzismailuy...@gmail.com>: >> > XRAT Shell Grammar ( >> > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/xrat/V4_xcu_chap02.html#tag_23_02_10 >> > ) explains that giving almost the same examples as we posted in >> > this thread. >> >> Thank you, interesting! So, if I understand correctly, the following >> construct which Bash allows is finally disallowed by POSIX? >> >> $ if (false) then (echo x) else (echo y) fi > > No, it is allowed.
OK, I have again checked the page. I haven't read the latter half of the section. The special rule is XCU 2.10.2/(1) Shell Grammar Rules [Command Name] > When the TOKEN is exactly a reserved word, the token identifier for > that reserved word shall result. Otherwise, the token WORD shall be > returned. Also, if the parser is in any state where only a reserved > word could be the next correct token, proceed as above. It seems like XCU 2.4 is telling lie..., or at least some important information is missing. Is XCU 2.4 just informative texts? Instead, is XCU 2.10 solely the actual normative requirements for the shell grammar? The above special rule means that $ if [[ str ]] then [[ str ]] fi $ if ((expr)) then ((expr)) fi should also be acceped as valid constructs. Other shells parses them, but Bash fails: $ bash -c 'if [[ str ]] then [[ str ]] fi'; echo $? bash: -c: line 0: syntax error near unexpected token `then' bash: -c: line 0: `if [[ str ]] then [[ str ]] fi' 1 $ zsh -c 'if [[ str ]] then [[ str ]] fi'; echo $? 0 $ ksh -c 'if [[ str ]] then [[ str ]] fi'; echo $? 0 $ yash -c 'if [[ str ]] then [[ str ]] fi'; echo $? 0 $ bash -c 'if ((expr)) then ((expr)) fi'; echo $? bash: -c: line 0: syntax error near unexpected token `then' bash: -c: line 0: `if ((expr)) then ((expr)) fi' 1 $ zsh -c 'if ((expr)) then ((expr)) fi'; echo $? 0 $ ksh -c 'if ((expr)) then ((expr)) fi'; echo $? 0 Note: yash doesn't support arithmetic commands. Maybe Bash could insist that [[ ... ]] and ((...)) are not part of the standard so that it can behave inconsistently. But it seems to me that there is really no reason to behave inconsistently here. -- Koichi
