From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-28302-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 21077 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2010 01:14:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 28302
Received: (qmail 13066 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2010 01:14:22 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <100925181409.ZM6168@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:14:09 -0700
In-reply-to: <AANLkTik5sOqcwHHh_Qu6E8qPuTUknngK7mZEa-_i-+ar@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In reply to Wayne Davison <wayned@users.sourceforge.net>
 "Re: !!$ unitialized at first prompt" (Sep 25, 10:26am)
References: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1009232317460.4754@hp>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1009240037470.4754@hp>
	<AANLkTikvXfMnkWiZ0kay=s67X=UFhiSvhJGdU120=-6R@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100924133936.245765b2@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
	<100924081042.ZM4496@torch.brasslantern.com>	<20100924211247.626449fb@pws-pc>
	<100924235332.ZM5186@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<AANLkTik5sOqcwHHh_Qu6E8qPuTUknngK7mZEa-_i-+ar@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100925194951.07c8513d@pws-pc>
In-reply-to: <20100925194951.07c8513d@pws-pc>
Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
 "Re: !!$ unitialized at first prompt" (Sep 25,  7:49pm)
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: Zsh Workers <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: !!$ unitialized at first prompt
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sep 25,  7:49pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: !!$ unitialized at first prompt
}
} On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:26:28 -0700
} Wayne Davison <wayned@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
} > It might be nice to introduce a new history format that would indicate the
} > word splitting in a simple manner.
} 
} (1) I'm not sure how much more this actually gains (2) I'd rather not
} have another incompatible history format (3) I prefer that the history
} file always contains a readable line that can be copied directly for use
} from outside the shell.

I agree.

If we were going to do something like this, I'd instead suggest that we
take the known word positions as offsets into the buffer, encode that
somehow, and stick it in the extended-history prefix, rather than
embed an encoding in the literal history text.