Re: function grammar

> So maybe the declaration could be fixed to show that, e.g., as either of: > > name () compound-command [redirection] > function name [()] compound-command [redirection] I think this is a great suggestion. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer

Re: function grammar

> I see this in bash(1): > > SHELL GRAMMAR > ... > Shell Function Definitions > ... > [ function ] name () compound-command [redirection] > > and do not see the version you show without the parens. Read the text following the definition. It says, in p

Re: function grammar

> from man bash, to define a function use; > > "function" "name" > OR > "name" () > > right? > > And Compound Commands are: > > ( ) >{ ; ) > (( expression )) > [[ expression ]] > ...et al > > so why do I get a syntax error for > > function good_dir [[ -n $1 && -d $1 && -r $1

BUG: grammar handler needs to be fixed to recognize Bash syntax.... (was Re: function grammar)

The following function is legal syntax, but yields an error: function good_dir [[ -n $1 && -d $1 && -r $1 && -x $1 ]] bash: syntax error near unexpected token `[[' To which Andreas comments that it's a grammar bug: Andreas Schwab wrote: Bernd Eggink writes: "If the function reserved

Re: function grammar

Ken Irving wrote: So maybe the declaration could be fixed to show that, e.g., as either of: name () compound-command [redirection] function name [()] compound-command [redirection] I can't see how to put that in one construct... BNF would use: < 'function' > | < '()' > [redirecti

Re: function grammar

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:46:30AM +0200, Bernd Eggink wrote: > Am 19.07.2010 08:30, schrieb Ken Irving: > >On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:53:02AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: > >> > >>from man bash, to define a function use; > >> > >>"function" "name" > >> OR > >>"name" () > >> > >>right? > >> > >>And C

Re: function grammar

Bernd Eggink writes: > "If the function reserved word is supplied, the parentheses are > optional." While the grammer has the right rules for this the handling inside of special_case_tokens isn't right up to it, it only recognizes '{' following 'function WORD'. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab,

Re: function grammar

Am 19.07.2010 08:30, schrieb Ken Irving: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:53:02AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: from man bash, to define a function use; "function" "name" OR "name" () right? And Compound Commands are: () {; ) (( expression )) [[ expression ]] ...et al so why do I get

Re: function grammar

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:53:02AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: > > from man bash, to define a function use; > > "function" "name" > OR > "name" () > > right? > > And Compound Commands are: > > ( ) > { ; ) > (( expression )) > [[ expression ]] > ...et al > > so why do I get a syntax

Re: function grammar

Linda Walsh wrote: The curly brackets are suposed to be optional. They are line "2" of the Compound commands list below... Don't ask me why, but it works when you don't use the "function" keyword, but "()" instead: foo() [[ 1 ]] Might be a parsing bug, though you shouldn't use "function" at

Re: function grammar

The curly brackets are suposed to be optional. They are line "2" of the Compound commands list below... Clark J. Wang wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Linda Walsh > wrote: from man bash, to define a function use; "function" "name" OR "name" (

Re: function grammar

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: > > > from man bash, to define a function use; > > "function" "name" > OR > "name" () > > right? > > And Compound Commands are: > > ( ) > { ; ) > (( expression )) > [[ expression ]] > ...et al > > so why do I get a syntax error for >

function grammar

from man bash, to define a function use; "function" "name" OR "name" () right? And Compound Commands are: ( ) { ; ) (( expression )) [[ expression ]] ...et al so why do I get a syntax error for function good_dir [[ -n $1 && -d $1 && -r $1 && -x $1 ]] bash: syntax error near u