Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 03:26:28PM CEST: >> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > * Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 03:08:24PM CEST: >> >> >> >> "pretty portable" may not be enough for autoconf ;-) >> > >> > It's very portable. Really. >> >> (curious, not argumentative) How do you know? > > Well, I certainly don't have Paul's kind of experience with unixy > shells, but working on Autoconf makes you absorb all portability > issue documents on shells you can get your eyes on, and try out all > suspicious-looking constructs on all shells you can get your fingers > on. > > The fact that redirection works on compound commands with all Bourne > shell clones is documented indirectly in > <http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/bourne/common.html>, where Sven mentions
Thanks for looking. > that a subshell may be created. (When it comes to traditional shells, > Sven's pages are the definite reference.) > > And I think I have tried this out at some point with several modern > shells, so I'm pretty confident with those. > >> > for var in $list; do >> > $cmds >> > done | $cmd > >> It's the same concept, sure. But not the same syntax, and guaranteed >> not to be the same parser rule in every bourne shell's grammar. > > Ah, there you give just enough rope to start nit picking. There's only > one Bourne shell. ;-) Right <sarcasm> ;-) We wish. > And that Bourne shell's source is here: > <http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/src/cmd/sh/cmd.c.html> and shows > quite nicely that compound commands were handled uniformly; go up the > directory for the rest of the sources, or, for a version compilable on a > modern system: <http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html> if you prefer > trying out to reading the source; but reading is an interesting thing to > do in itself. Life is too short :-) > I suppose you remember those pre-ANSI ways of writing C a > lot better than I could. ;-) Not really. My memory isn't that good.
