Why does this simple script behave differently inline and in script?

Question

I have a simple bash script for file listing:

$ cat process.sh
for i in *; do echo $i; done
$

and then I run:

$ ./process.sh
a
b
c
d
process.sh
$

and

$ . ./process.sh










$

and

$ for i in *; do echo $i; done










$

I've read Why does Bash behave differently when called as sh? which explains that inline commands use sh instead of bash - is wildcard non-POSIX in this case?

I cannot reproduce the empty output you see; it correctly produces a file listing with both direct execution and sourcing several shells, include `bash` (3.2 and 4.3), `zsh`, and `dash`. — chepner, Mar 29 '15 at 18:49
Can you confirm that that you have five files in the directory, named `a`-`d` and `process.sh`, and that sourcing the posted `process.sh` file results in ten blank lines? What does `ps -p $$` say? — that other guy, Mar 29 '15 at 19:02
What do you have `echo` aliassed to in your shell environment? (Run `alias` with no arguments and look at the output.) — Jonathan Leffler, Mar 29 '15 at 19:03
1. I have files a-d and the script in the directory 2. $ ps -p $$ PID TTY TIME CMD 21858 pts/1 00:00:00 bash 3. I don't have any alias for echo command. 4. `source process.sh` produces empty lines as well I'm using vi editing mode? Does this have anything to do? — Sebastian Kramer, Mar 29 '15 at 19:33
Ok - solved it. There was a weird `for` alias in bashrc. Thanks for the effort everyone. — Sebastian Kramer, Mar 29 '15 at 19:37
Don't alias keywords. If you think you must alias keywords, think again. If you still think you must alias keywords, don't ask about why things don't work. — Jonathan Leffler, Mar 29 '15 at 19:57

score 0 · Answer 1 · answered Mar 29 '15 at 19:38

0

Solved. The reason was an incorrect for alias. Thanks for your replies.

answered Mar 29 '15 at 19:38

Sebastian Kramer

1 Answers1