-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 4/8/2009 6:10 AM:
> The corresponding link in POSIX 2008 is:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_04
>
> although the expository listing in that section is misleading.
I spoke too soon. The online version rendered incorrectly, as:
The format for the for loop is as follows:
for name [ in [word ... ]]do
compound-listdone
But the .pdf rendering is correct:
The format for the for loop is as follows:
for name [ in [word ... ]]
do
compound-list
done
Notice that by placing do on a new line, then deferring to the grammar for
the cases where newline can be replaced by a semicolon, the printed
version has no error after all.
> The REAL
> POSIX definition is given later in the grammar:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_10_02
>
> for_clause : For name linebreak do_group
> | For name linebreak in sequential_sep do_group
> | For name linebreak in wordlist sequential_sep do_group
> do_group : Do compound_list Done /* Apply rule 6 */
> linebreak : newline_list
> | /* empty */
And one other important production, which shows that semicolon can only
appear before 'do' if you also had 'in':
sequential_sep : ';' linebreak
| newline_list
>
>
> Which means the POSIX-mandated syntax should really be represented as:
>
> for name [in [word...] ;] do
> compound-list
> done
Hmm. That three-line representation for POSIX still looks valid. But I'm
not sure whether I favor the four-line or three-line version.
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake e...@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknclysACgkQ84KuGfSFAYBwMgCg0nmatLqwGbo2DyR/ENT29n10
6iAAoLauBFgMA4TeOZ1g60rGpikMMRG/
=TL+1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
