On 10/8/15 1:48 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> 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.
> ---
> Yeah, I think I mentioned that case:
>
> I've no idea of the difficulty level to do this, but
> was thinking if not too difficult... and if it is...
> well keep it on a pile of ideas if bash ever got
> refactored such that implementation became easier..?
>
> I understand the problems of working with 10+ year old code
> that's been patched through the roof and trying to add _anything_
> to the design. Thus the proposal of keeping the idea around
> if bash was ever refactored such that implementing a change like
> this wouldn't be a big deal....
You misunderstand. The implementation difficulty, such as it is,
is secondary to whether or not changing the grammar like that is a
good idea in the first place. I don't think it is, and I don't
think that adding syntactic sugar is a compelling reason to change
that.
--
``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/
