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 c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
