Re: ksh (IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 ?)

2010-01-09 Thread J.C. Roberts
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:56:02 + Matthew Szudzik wrote: > On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 12:43:05AM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > If I use redirection rather than piping for input to the `while` > > loop, it is not a separate process, and works like the 'for' loop. > > I have seen some Unix systems w

Re: ksh (IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 ?)

2010-01-09 Thread Matthew Szudzik
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 12:43:05AM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: > If I use redirection rather than piping for input to the `while` loop, > it is not a separate process, and works like the 'for' loop. I have seen some Unix systems where this doesn't work, either. See http://groups.google.com/grou

Re: ksh (IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 ?)

2010-01-09 Thread J.C. Roberts
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:51:31 +0100 Matthias Kilian wrote: > n Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:18:39PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > When you append to a variable within a 'for' loop, the changes are > > exist after the loop ends, but if you do the same within a 'while' > > loop, the changes are lost? > [

Re: ksh (IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 ?)

2010-01-09 Thread Philip Guenther
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > I've been looking for standards on "correct" variable scope in ksh but > the IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 stuff on the Open Group site doesn't mention > any rules? > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/contents.html The key secti

Re: ksh (IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 ?)

2010-01-08 Thread Matthias Kilian
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:18:39PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: > When you append to a variable within a 'for' loop, the changes are > exist after the loop ends, but if you do the same within a 'while' > loop, the changes are lost? [...] > # Now we try the same type of thing with the 'while' loop. >