Eric Blake wrote:
Actually, POSIX_does_ allow for missing words between 'in' and the
terminator (; or newline) before 'do' (whether by a word that expands to
nothing, or by omission of words), requiring that the body of the for
statement is skipped in that case:
Ah, sorry, I was thinking of pr
On 2015-06-04 14:41 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/04/2015 02:17 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > Do these problematic shells properly handle:
> >
> > for arg
> > do
> > ...
> > done
> >
> > when $# is 0?
>
> Yes; all shells do.
OK, good to know.
[...]
> it's not the expand-to-nothing th
On 06/04/2015 02:17 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> Do these problematic shells properly handle:
>
> for arg
> do
> ...
> done
>
> when $# is 0?
Yes; all shells do.
$ /bin/sh -c 'echo $#; for arg
do echo hi; done; echo bye'
0
bye
>
> If so, can we use the following as a workaround?
>
>
On 2015-06-04 13:34 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding autoconf]
>
> On 06/04/2015 01:17 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >
> > On 06/04/2015 09:41 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> >> GEN src/coreutils.h
> >> /bin/sh: 0403-057 Syntax error at line 1 : `;' is not expected.
> >
>
> > Port to POSIX shell,
[adding autoconf]
On 06/04/2015 01:17 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2015 09:41 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>> GEN src/coreutils.h
>> /bin/sh: 0403-057 Syntax error at line 1 : `;' is not expected.
>
> Port to POSIX shell, which doesn't allow 'for i in ; do ...'.
Actually, POSIX _does_
