Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #16728 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Klaas Vantournhout <klaas.vantournhout@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-06 23:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-08-06 23:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to gnu.bash.bug
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Undocumented for-loop construct Klaas Vantournhout <klaas.vantournhout@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 23:50 +0200
| From | Klaas Vantournhout <klaas.vantournhout@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-06 23:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Undocumented for-loop construct |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1054.1596751404.2739.bug-bash@gnu.org> |
Dear Bash-developers,
Recently I came across a surprising undocumented bash-feature
$ for i in 1 2 3; { echo $i; };
The usage of curly-braces instead of the well-documented do ... done
construct was a complete surprise to me and even lead me to open the
following question on stack overflow:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63247449/alternate-for-loop-construct
The community is unable to find any reference to this feature, except
* a brief slide in some youtube presentation by Stephen Bourne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEJoWfobpA&t=2095
Relevant part starts at 34:55
* and the actual source code of bash and the Bourne Shell V7
Questions:
1) Is there a reason why this is undocumented?
2) Can this become documented?
3) What is the historical background behind this alternative construct?
Thanks in advance,
Klaas
Back to top | Article view | gnu.bash.bug
csiph-web