Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11590
| From | Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | Re: minor language RFE(s) |
| Date | 2015-10-08 11:44 -0400 |
| Organization | ITS, Case Western Reserve University |
| Message-ID | <mailman.29.1444319096.4386.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
| References | <5615ACEF.4040804@tlinx.org> |
On 10/7/15 7:38 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> I was thinking ... lets say we had 1 or 2 abbreviation
> keywords, at least 1 being "int=declare -i",
> and ease-of-use "my=declare"
>
> that could then allow the "declare" of the 'for' iterator
> as local, in-line.
>
> i.e. instead of predeclaring them w/'declare -i' or 'declare'
> one could write:
>
> for((int i=0; i<10; ++i)); do : done
>
> or 2)
>
> for int i in {1..10}; do : done
> for my i in {a..z}; do : done
These change the syntax of the shell in incompatible ways. The
arithetic `for' command takes arithmetic expressions, not shell
commands, and the `for' command takes a name (identifier), not a
shell command. Aside from any syntactic sugar (`int', `my'), these
are not consistent with how the shell grammar is formed, and this
isn't a good enough reason to change the grammar that dramatically.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: minor language RFE(s) Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2015-10-08 11:44 -0400
csiph-web