4 ms·
Bash is an advanced beast. In Bourne, it was for i in `seq 10` do print $i done Which is pretty much readable though. The only issue is Pa
by piekvorst 9mo ago
Bash is an advanced beast. In Bourne, it was
for i in `seq 10`
do
print $i
done
Which is pretty much readable though. The only issue is Pascal vs C syntax. As a fan of the former, I admit that the latter is more advanced: it stacks better. E.g. consider
if (test -f junk) rm junk
against
if test -f junk; then rm junk; fi
The former “avoids semicolons that Bourne requires in odd places, and the syntax characters better set off the active parts of the command.” [1]
1: Rc—The Plan 9 Shell https://9p.io/sys/doc/rc.html https://9p.io/sys/doc/rc.html
- wpm 9mo agoThe semicolon is required only when not using new lines to split the command words, as in sleep 60; do_the_thing_that_needs_a_minute_wait It's not necessarily required in the for loop either, I tend to prefer the more compact method of putting the "do" on the same line as the for. It can be written as for i in {1..10} do print $1 done Having "done" be the signifier of the "the for loop context ends here" is 3 characters more than "}" or ")" or whatever else. "done" is more color coming off the screen with syntax-highlighting, and can be typed in two keypresses with a "d" and a "tab" in any editor from the last 30 years. It just seems like a very very inconsequential nitpick. At least Nushell doesn't pull a Python and just have "invisible space" be the end of the for-loop. One line conditionals are doable as well in the shell. test -f junk && junk or [[ -f junk ]] && junk You can even just use [ -f junk ] if double brackets is giving the yuck.
- piekvorst 9mo agoIn practice, the only noticeable difference I have witnessed is for (f in *.c) if (test -f $f) cc $f I can write the whole thing in a single line (which is essential in GUI and interactive contexts) and it reads well.