what i meant to detail more is
;
where is the cmd.. synatx err, obviously
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 17:23 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev wrote:
> as you may see
>
> e() { ; }
>
> and sadly
>
> e() { }
>
> is simply invalid code, as the others say its by posix sh and mr bash wont
> digg it i guess
>
> On Tue
as you may see
e() { ; }
and sadly
e() { }
is simply invalid code, as the others say its by posix sh and mr bash wont
digg it i guess
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 12:46 wrote:
> Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
> Machine: x86_64
> OS: linux-gnu
> Compiler: gcc
> C
18 Ocak 2022 Salı tarihinde yazdı:
> [...] those situation exist and require me to catch this problem
> with additional code:
>a: defining an empty function will throw a syntax error
>b: defining an empty bodies flow control construct will thow a syntax
> error
>
Why make it a special ca
Date:Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:44:46 +0100
From:l.bash...@scarydevilmonastery.net
Message-ID:
<1642506286.659529.80113.nullmai...@latitude.scarydevilmonastery.net>
|a: defining an empty function will throw a syntax error
|b: defining an empty bodies flow control
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:44:46PM +0100, l.bash...@scarydevilmonastery.net
wrote:
>a: defining an empty function will throw a syntax error
>b: defining an empty bodies flow control construct will thow a syntax error
This has been the case since the original Bourne shell in the 1970s.
The
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
-Werror=format-security -Wall
uname output: Linux latitude 5.15.0-2-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.15.5-2 (2021-12-18)
x86_64 GNU/Li
