Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<uu7k56$ipoh$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 23:51:02 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 16 Message-ID: <uu7k56$ipoh$2@dont-email.me> References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <uu624j$792q$1@dont-email.me> <uu7a2m$ghfn$4@dont-email.me> <uu7i13$im9b$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 23:51:03 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="00aae38d006fb1a7163adabdc79fe7a3"; logging-data="616209"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18P2j/0p7hMmM6DztQLS0ds" User-Agent: Pan/0.155 (Kherson; fc5a80b8) Cancel-Lock: sha1:/ZAZhv/pBqnxmpZxxwMgtdG08bk= Bytes: 1744 On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 00:14:42 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > What I was saying is that there's initially literal program text > that is transformed to tokens in the lexical analysis, and then > further processed. In a shell language, that is “further processed” as literal text, except for any instances of substitution markers. >> in a programming language, you have the assumption that >> “everything is a program construct until indicated otherwise”. > > So what is 'for i in a ; do ... ; done' then in your world? “for” is just the name of a command, like any other. In POSIX, this one happens to be built into the shell; it might not in other shells.