Compare:
for a in "$(echo 1 2)"; do echo "x${a}x"; done
x1 2x
for a in $(echo 1 2) ; do echo "x${a}x"; done
x1x
x2x
a="$(echo 1 2)"; echo "x${a}x"
x1 2x
a=$(echo 1 2); echo "x${a}x"
x1 2x
Shell quoting is difficult enough; why is such an inconsistency making
it even more confusing?
Uwe Waldmann might give a clue in his excellent "Guide to Unix shell
quoting":
Note that in these [assignment + others] cases, the shell syntax
allows only a single word, not a sequence of words, so that blank
interpretation or expansion of globbing characters might result in
something syntactically illegal.
In other words:
In order to save you from some very obvious syntax errors, I'll
make quoting even more confusing than it already is.
Sorry but I am not grateful at all.
Or is there a better rationale for this design?
