Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:19:48 +0800
From: Koichi Murase <myoga.mur...@gmail.com>
Message-ID:
<CAFLRLk-7rBhjMDTdmOb+0SpEJ4=6tlntt39bztj-yuw5doe...@mail.gmail.com>
| For example, this alone doesn't explain why
|
| $ if :; then echo A; fi if :; then echo A; fi
|
| (i.e., the combination "fi if") is a syntax error.
That one is quite a different issue, if you look at the grammar
you'll find there's no way to have 2 consecutive commands (no matter
what kind of commands they are) without some kind of separator
between them. The second "if" there is a total red herring, it makes
no difference what word is there (except one of the legal operators in
that location) - it is going to be a syntax error.
The other examples given in earlier messages have one command
embedded in another, there's no requirement for separators in those
(and they are separators, not terminators).
Your "case x in (x) if :; then echo; fi esac" is the same.
kre
ps: many of these strange rules all originate in the original Bourne
shell's recursive descent parser, which was crammed into a very limited
space, and so didn't always enforce sanity - it made sure that what
needed to work worked, but cared much less about prohibiting things
that are useless, and could easily have been rejected (like case statements
with no patterns) had it been considered worthwhile to spend the code
space needed to make that happen. Since then everyone copies so as
to maintain backward compatibility ("some idiot might have written code
like that, we cannot reject it"), and consequently, POSIX, which documents
what actually exists, specifies it as well.
