🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: gnu.bash.bug
Article #1034

for without in

#1034
From: Bill Trost
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1989 05:10
13 lines
650 bytes
I've noticed that something like 

	spam() { for i; do echo $i; done }

expands into

	spam () { for i in $*
	do
	echo $i
	done }

(direct shell output).  Personally, I would expect "$@" instead of $*
in the for statement.  What is the "official statement" on this?
Technical Details
Message-ID: <13739@reed.UUCP>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!telly!philmtl!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!reed!trost

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!telly!philmtl!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!reed!trost
From: trost@reed.bitnet (Bill Trost)
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: for without in
Message-ID: <13739@reed.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 89 05:10:31 GMT
Sender: news@reed.UUCP
Lines: 13