paula@bcsaic.UUCP (Paul Allen) (06/27/91)
While working my way through the perl 4.0 Configure script, I discovered that the Minix shell chokes on a construct like: for n do whatever done It complains about a syntax error. My V7 documentation says that "for n do" is equivalent to "for n in $@ do". "$@" expands to the entire argument list, or "$1 $2 $3 ...". I changed the offending section of Configure to something like: for n in $@ do whatever done The shell still complained about a syntax error. But if I wrote: for n in $@ do whatever done or: for n in $@ ; do whatever done it worked fine. This looks like a bug to me. I didn't spend any time trying to fix it, 'cause it was so much easier to just patch Configure. :-) Has anybody seen this bug? If I ever get to the point where I can post diffs for compiling perl under 386 Minix, it would be nice not to have to post patches that are just bandaids for Minix bugs. :-( And while I'm here, is anybody working on porting perl to Minix? I took a stab at it with perl-4.000, but gave it up when I was unable to chmem either the shell or awk big enough to handle Configure. After applying patches 1-10, Configure is working somewhat better, but I'm having to fix what appear to be glaring bugs. Given that this software comes from Larry Wall, I hesitate to suggest that it contains bugs. However, the perl-4.010 Configure has the same problems on my Sun as it does under Minix! Hmmm... If there are others working along these same lines, I wouldn't mind comparing notes with you. Paul Allen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul L. Allen | pallen@atc.boeing.com Boeing Advanced Technology Center | ...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!pallen
ramon@convex.com (Ramon Dominguez) (06/28/91)
In article <50556@bcsaic.UUCP> paula@bcsaic.UUCP (Paul Allen) writes:
=>While working my way through the perl 4.0 Configure script, I
=>discovered that the Minix shell chokes on a construct like:
=>
=> for n do
=> whatever
=> done
=>
=>It complains about a syntax error.
It _is_ a syntax error. You need a newline or a semicolon between the last
word of the wordlist and the "do" keyword. This allows the wordlist to contain
the word "do".
--ramonv882087@si.hhs.nl (06/28/91)
In article <9106280203.AA09940@mcsun.EU.net> you write: > >It complains about a syntax error. My V7 documentation says >that "for n do" is equivalent to "for n in $@ do". "$@" expands >to the entire argument list, or "$1 $2 $3 ...". I changed > >it worked fine. This looks like a bug to me. I didn't spend >any time trying to fix it, 'cause it was so much easier to just >patch Configure. :-) > If this is a bug, I can only say it is a bug in your V7 documentation. I have never ever seen a UNIX(like) shell that accepted the for .. do construction without a semicolon (";") ___ <*,*> . . . < "Good luck 2 U, Uhu" > [` '] -"-"- -- | | / Hans Voss <v882087@si.hhs.nl> | ___ |___| / Parkweg 200 +-------------------------------------+ <*,*> | | / 3134 VS VLAARDINGEN | /// Now, what is this //////////////| [' `] | |/ The Netherlands |/// supposed to mean? ////////////// | -"-"-
burgess%creek.decnet@hqhsd.brooks.af.mil (CREEK::BURGESS) (06/28/91)
Quoting: Paul Allen <paula%BCSAIC.UUCP@VM1.NoDak.EDU> >The shell still complained about a syntax error. But if I wrote: > > for n in $@ > do > whatever > done > >or: > > for n in $@ ; do > whatever > done > >it worked fine. This looks like a bug to me. I didn't spend >any time trying to fix it, 'cause it was so much easier to just >patch Configure. :-) > >Has anybody seen this bug? Yup, I ran across it last Saturday doing something similar. I also came up with the same two workarounds. After I get done upgradeing to 1.5 and porting PERL (deja vu) for my boss ('by the hour' type work), I am going to look into shell and find out if the 'do' operator can be allowed on the 'for' line, unless it has been fixed :-)... TSgt Dave Burgess Armstrong Lab Brooks AFB, TX
paula@bcsaic.UUCP (Paul Allen) (06/29/91)
In article <57433@nigel.ee.udel.edu> v882087@si.hhs.nl writes: >In article <9106280203.AA09940@mcsun.EU.net> I write: >> >>[...about a couple suspected bugs in the Minix shell ...] > >If this is a bug, I can only say it is a bug in your V7 documentation. I >have never ever seen a UNIX(like) shell that accepted the for .. do >construction without a semicolon (";") Try this under SunOS 4.1.1: # set a b c # for n do > echo $n > done a b c # Or Ultrix 3.1: $ set a b c $ for n do > echo $n > done a b c $ As you would expect, both of those systems complain about things like: for n in a b c do echo $n done The Seventh Edition Unix Programmer's Manual states that "reserved words like do and done are only recognized following a newline or semicolon." But in the next paragraph, it says: "Another example of the use of the for loop is the create command whose text is for i do >$i; done The command create alpha beta ensures that two empty files alpha and beta exist and are empty. [...] Notice also that a semicolon (or newline) is required before done." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which shell has a bug. I've managed to work around the various problems and have now made it all the way through the perl Configure script. The next step is to run all the *.SH scripts manually. (The shell ran into some sort of nesting limit when Configure tried to run them automatically.) Then I get to try to actually *compile* the dang thing! :-) Paul Allen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul L. Allen | pallen@atc.boeing.com Boeing Advanced Technology Center | ...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!pallen