Hi, me: > > There are two old forms of for-loops: Volker Kuhlmann: > Current bash lists it as valid syntax, so it's not "old".
"Old" in the sense of not the "new" for (( expr1 ; expr2 ; expr3 )) ; do list ; done "Old" in the sense of being mentioned by S.R.Bourne in his book "The UNIX System". > Read the man bash again. I read in my man 1 bash: for name [ in word ] ; do list ; done Not: for name [ in [ word ] ] ; do list ; done > "If the expansion of the items following in results in an empty > list, no commands are executed, and the return status is 0." So meanwhile it is declared an intended feature indeed. Nevertheless ./configure created by autotools should rather not rely on such a border case. autotools claims to enable portability to a wide range of existing systems. I.e. systems not as they are specified today, but as they are installed in reality. Two elder Linux plus one (probably young) Solaris constitute enough existence to make this a bug in autotools resp. in our autotools configuration. Well, as said, we got our reasons to stick with autotools. Wether it lets us look stupid from time to time or not. Probably we deserve it. :)) Have a nice day :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
