A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1098 ====================================================================== Reported By: Mark_Galeck Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1098 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Error Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: New Name: Mark Galeck Organization: User Reference: Section: 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules Page Number: 2379 Line Number: 76091 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2016-10-20 16:56 UTC Last Modified: 2016-10-26 16:32 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: do_group symbol cannot be accepted as written, because rule 6 cannot yield Done token ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0003458) Mark_Galeck (reporter) - 2016-10-26 16:32 http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1098#c3458 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Rule 6 is necessary to force 'for' as unquoted text being treated as a keyword and not a simple command with arguments, in the absence of a sequential_sep as 'best/longest matching production' to satisfy the command production. It could be that I already know what you are talking about, but can't tell because I don't understand this sentence. Since you write "necessary", can you give me an example involving "for", that if we dropped rule 6 and just applied default rule 1, would behave differently compared to the current standard? >A similar ambiguity exists for 'in' Likewise, please, an example involving "in". I am not trying to argue with you, I just want to see if there is anything in what you wrote, that I don't already know. > for varname do ( ) done<NL> parses as a for loop, with '( )' representing a valid subshell compound-list that does nothing, and fully matches for_clause choice 1 No it doesn't. '( )', with or without the space inside is invalid subshell. Both dash and bash do not accept it. > for varname do \() done<NL> parses as a simple command, 'for'; with 'varname', 'do', '()', and 'done' as textual arguments, as '\()' is an invalid compound-list that forces backtracking to simple_command as best match No it doesn't, for multiple reasons: * 'for' as the first token will be treated as reserved word, regardless of whether the remaining tokens do or not form valid 'for' loop sequence. That is because, in order for it to parse as a simple command, 'for' would have to be WORD in the cmd_name production, and rule 7a applies, which says, 'for' is For, not WORD. * Even if 'for' were a command name (which is not), \() is not one WORD token, but two tokens, one \( and then second ), and the second token is the ')' operator, so the whole thing would still not be one simple command , but it would be invalid use of ')'. As before, check either dash or bash, they show what I wrote above. > \for varname do ( ) done<NL> also parses as a simple command, but with '(' and ')' as separate arguments, due to the escaping '\' disabling keyword recognition. No it doesn't. Here '\for' is command OK, but both ( and ) are operators, regardless of space between them, and they are unexpected. Again, bash and dash do not accept this. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2016-10-20 16:56 Mark_Galeck New Issue 2016-10-20 16:56 Mark_Galeck Name => Mark Galeck 2016-10-20 16:56 Mark_Galeck Section => 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules 2016-10-20 16:56 Mark_Galeck Page Number => 2379 2016-10-20 16:56 Mark_Galeck Line Number => 76091 2016-10-21 09:23 geoffclare Note Added: 0003448 2016-10-21 09:24 geoffclare Note Edited: 0003448 2016-10-21 09:41 geoffclare Note Edited: 0003448 2016-10-21 21:56 Mark_Galeck Note Added: 0003449 2016-10-22 08:00 geoffclare Note Added: 0003450 2016-10-22 08:22 Mark_Galeck Note Added: 0003451 2016-10-22 10:44 geoffclare Note Added: 0003452 2016-10-22 12:01 Mark_Galeck Note Added: 0003453 2016-10-22 12:18 Mark_Galeck Note Added: 0003454 2016-10-22 12:19 Mark_Galeck Note Edited: 0003454 2016-10-22 12:19 Mark_Galeck Note Edited: 0003454 2016-10-22 12:20 Mark_Galeck Note Edited: 0003454 2016-10-22 12:24 Mark_Galeck Note Edited: 0003453 2016-10-22 12:29 Mark_Galeck Note Added: 0003455 2016-10-25 23:16 shware_systems Note Added: 0003457 2016-10-26 16:32 Mark_Galeck Note Added: 0003458 ======================================================================
