Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:01:28 -0500 To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: net release/installer status? Message-ID: <20000330230128.A4314@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com References: <20000328174122 DOT A29443 AT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.8i In-Reply-To: ; from khan@NanoTech.Wisc.EDU on Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:45:59PM -0600 On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:45:59PM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote: >On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Chris Faylor wrote: > >> >> I don't see a syntax error. It seems to be legal to have: >> >> for f ; in stuff; do >> >> I don't know why you're seeing an error. Is the above command an error >> on your system? > >Same here. Bash, pdksh, ash, the real ksh from AT&T, all handle this >correctly. I think that this is broken in older bashes. cgf