Re: function grammar

2010-07-19 Thread Jan Schampera 

Linda Walsh wrote:

The curly brackets are suposed to be optional.
They are line 2 of the Compound commands list below...


Don't ask me why, but it works when you don't use the function 
keyword, but () instead:


foo() [[ 1 ]]

Might be a parsing bug, though you shouldn't use function at all.

Re: function grammar

2010-07-19 Thread Ken Irving 
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:53:02AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
 
 from man bash, to define a function use;
 
 function name compound-command
  OR
 name () compound-command
 
 right?
 
 And Compound Commands are:
 
  ( list)
   { list; )
  (( expression ))
  [[ expression ]]
 ...et al
 
 so why do I get a syntax error for
 
 function good_dir [[ -n $1  -d $1  -r $1   -x $1 ]]
 
 bash: syntax error near unexpected token `[['

I see this in bash(1):

SHELL GRAMMAR
...
Shell Function Definitions
...
[ function ] name () compound-command [redirection]

and do not see the version you show without the parens.

$ function good_dir() [[ -n $1  -d $1  -r $1   -x $1 ]]
$ good_dir; echo $?
1
$ good_dir /tmp; echo $?
0

Ken

Re: function grammar

2010-07-19 Thread Bernd Eggink 

Am 19.07.2010 08:30, schrieb Ken Irving:

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:53:02AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:


from man bash, to define a function use;

function namecompound-command
  OR
name ()compound-command

right?

And Compound Commands are:

  (list)
   {list; )
  (( expression ))
  [[ expression ]]
...et al

so why do I get a syntax error for

function good_dir [[ -n $1  -d $1  -r $1  -x $1 ]]

bash: syntax error near unexpected token `[['


I see this in bash(1):

 SHELL GRAMMAR
 ...
 Shell Function Definitions
 ...
 [ function ] name () compound-command [redirection]

and do not see the version you show without the parens.


It's there. Look at the 3rd sentence:

If the function reserved word is supplied,  the  parentheses  are 
optional.


Bernd

--
Bernd Eggink
http://sudrala.de

Re: function grammar

2010-07-19 Thread Andreas Schwab 
Bernd Eggink mono...@sudrala.de writes:

 If the function reserved word is supplied,  the  parentheses  are
 optional.

While the grammer has the right rules for this the handling inside of
special_case_tokens isn't right up to it, it only recognizes '{'
following 'function WORD'.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
And now for something completely different.

Re: How to input ^J?

2010-07-19 Thread Greg Wooledge 
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 05:01:05PM -0700, John Reiser wrote:
  Lastly since ^J is a newline you can generate one with echo \n.
 
 What does work is either of these:
 
 $ echo ''
 $ echo -e -n '\n'

Or printf '\n'.

Or if he wants to use it in a command string, rather than producing it
on a stream, he can use the $'\n' quoting.

Re: function grammar

2010-07-19 Thread Ken Irving 
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:46:30AM +0200, Bernd Eggink wrote:
 Am 19.07.2010 08:30, schrieb Ken Irving:
 On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:53:02AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
 
 from man bash, to define a function use;
 
 function namecompound-command
   OR
 name ()compound-command
 
 right?
 
 And Compound Commands are:
 
   (list)
{list; )
   (( expression ))
   [[ expression ]]
 ...et al
 
 so why do I get a syntax error for
 
 function good_dir [[ -n $1  -d $1  -r $1  -x $1 ]]
 
 bash: syntax error near unexpected token `[['
 
 I see this in bash(1):
 
  SHELL GRAMMAR
  ...
  Shell Function Definitions
  ...
  [ function ] name () compound-command [redirection]
 
 and do not see the version you show without the parens.
 
 It's there. Look at the 3rd sentence:
 
 If the function reserved word is supplied,  the  parentheses  are
 optional.

So maybe the declaration could be fixed to show that, e.g., as either of:

name () compound-command [redirection]
function name [()] compound-command [redirection]

I can't see how to put that in one construct...

Ken