Re: for builtin violates Single UNIX Specification

[Ervin Németh]

>>>>> Chet Ramey writes:

[...]

> 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?


-Ervin Németh
-- 
Verba volant, scripta manent.