ShellCheck VS stan

Your for loop is missing the do keyword, example: for i in 1 2; do echo $i; done. You can use https://www.shellcheck.net/ to check your shell script.

So in conclusion, your code snippet isn't convertible into a for loop in a good, semantic way. Keep it as while loop. Also bonus tip, check the sidebar for resources such as ShellCheck to check your code for subtle mistakes

ShellCheck warns about this and other common problems

This, plus [shellcheck](https://www.shellcheck.net/) or something similar should help you figure out most problems a LOT faster.

shellcheck is quite nice to check your syntax for mistakes, even ones that don't usually cause issues but perhaps on files with spaces in their names, etc.

Final suggestion, run your script through https://www.shellcheck.net/ to get suggestions on improvements.

A tool like shellcheck can help quite a bit in navigating bash requirements: https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck I'd suggest using Zsh interactively (w/ syntax highlighting, autocompletion, easy to use hook functions, etc.); & stick to bash with shellcheck analysis for scripting generally.

So you probably want two nested while loops as you count down or up the array. These examples should fix you up. I recommend the vanilla POSIX while example, and install the command-line version of shellcheck to lint your code as you go along.

Note, also: https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/wiki/SC2015

That sounds very interesting. Maybe it would not be very hard to implement a prototype of such a system with Stan?

Would you be okay if we add Soisy to the list of companies using stan?

However, I'm a huge fan of static tools like this in general. I've heard great things about https://package.elm-lang.org/packages/jfmengels/elm-review/latest/ and I need to try out https://github.com/kowainik/stan. Also its possible HLint has ways to write more advanced rules and I just don't know about them, but even if that's so hopefully I've explained why just dropping it in isn't a huge win.