Re: minor language RFE(s)

[Chet Ramey]

On 10/8/15 1:48 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:

>> The arithetic `for' command takes arithmetic expressions, not shell
>> commands, and the `for' command takes a name (identifier), not a
>> shell command.  Aside from any syntactic sugar (`int', `my'), these
>> are not consistent with how the shell grammar is formed, and this
>> isn't a good enough reason to change the grammar that dramatically.
> ---
> Yeah, I think I mentioned that case:
> 
>   I've no idea of the difficulty level to do this, but
>   was thinking if not too difficult...  and if it is...
>   well keep it on a pile of ideas if bash ever got
>   refactored such that implementation became easier..?
> 
> I understand the problems of working with 10+ year old code
> that's been patched through the roof and trying to add _anything_
> to the design.  Thus the proposal of keeping the idea around
> if bash was ever refactored such that implementing a change like
> this wouldn't be a big deal....

You misunderstand.  The implementation difficulty, such as it is,
is secondary to whether or not changing the grammar like that is a
good idea in the first place.  I don't think it is, and I don't
think that adding syntactic sugar is a compelling reason to change
that.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/