From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA12337 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 05:44:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA02352; Thu, 23 May 1996 15:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199605231920.PAA20331@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96 To: Zoltan Hidvegi cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: HISTCHARS In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 May 1996 21:11:14 +0200." <199605231911.VAA04322@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:20:47 -0400 From: Richard Coleman Resent-Message-ID: <"aiTY01.0.ga.WgBfn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1155 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > > I think it makes more sense for it to be HISTCHARS, since this is consistent > > with the case of HISTFILE and HISTSIZE. I now believe this to be more > > important than compatibility with bash or csh. > > I think that presently much more people use bash than zsh, especially > because all Linux distributions come with bash as the default login shell. > It is easier to convince these people about the superiority of zsh if we > provide better compatibility. And probably even more people use csh or > tcsh out there. > > Zoltan > Yes, but compability has its limits. It's fine if zsh is compatible with ksh (and sh). But when we try to make zsh compatible with every shells (by also worrying about csh, tcsh and bash compatibility), it starts to get too unwieldy. No shell can do everything. The art is in picking the correct set of compromises. rc