Misleading syntax in manual

[Reuben Thomas]

The syntax for the "for" command is misleading, as although correct for 
bash, it is not POSIX-compliant.

I am using GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (i486-pc-linux-gnu)

The man page says:

for name [ in word ] ; do list ; done

which conflicts with the POSIX syntax definition, given in

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02

which says:

    for name [ in [word ... ]]do
        compound-list


    done

Note that in the POSIX definition, a semi-colon is only needed, and indeed 
permitted, after the word list when an "in" clause is used. Hence:

for i; do

is not correct in POSIX, although it is accepted by bash. (I found this 
while trying to build GNU Zile on Solaris.) bash does, of course, accept the 
POSIX syntax.

The easiest fix seems to be to put the semicolon above in square brackets, 
making it optional, though this risks giving the impression that the syntax

for i in foo bar;; do

would be acceptable, when it's not (even by bash). So, you could give two 
explicit definitions:

for i [;] do list ; done

and

for i in word ; do list ; done

--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/
My dark path darkens; rise over the mountain, distant moon (Murasaki)
Listening to: 'Sanctus and Benedictus' from 'Mass of the Children and other
sacred music' (The Cambridge Singers / John Rutter)