From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17949 invoked from network); 19 May 2004 21:33:11 -0000 Received: from thor.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.86) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 19 May 2004 21:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 5380 invoked from network); 19 May 2004 21:32:49 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 May 2004 21:32:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 9623 invoked by alias); 19 May 2004 21:32:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19964 Received: (qmail 9611 invoked from network); 19 May 2004 21:32:44 -0000 Received: from thor.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (qmailr@130.225.247.86) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 May 2004 21:32:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 4836 invoked from network); 19 May 2004 21:32:33 -0000 Received: from cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk (195.92.193.19) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 May 2004 21:32:31 -0000 Received: from modem-32.imperator-angel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.32.32] helo=pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk) by cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BQYfu-0000mL-Er for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Wed, 19 May 2004 22:32:30 +0100 Received: by pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 501) id D1D1E8652; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C148649 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 22:37:51 +0100 (BST) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: [PATCH] local history support, take 2 In-reply-to: "Wayne Davison"'s message of "Wed, 19 May 2004 09:58:31 PDT." <20040519165831.GA21704@blorf.net> Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:37:50 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: <20040519213751.D1D1E8652@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Hits: 1.5 Wayne Davison wrote: > Because of this, I decided to switch the -p/-P options over to fc. Probably allowing it with both would be better, since `history' is a more natural command. > Shall I go ahead and check this in? Or do we want to consider this a > bit more? Looks essentially OK to me as it is, it can be enhanced later if we feel like it. I think we'll need to be on the watch for conditions caused by errors --- e.g. an error in popping due to problems with the temporary history failing to restore the permanent history even though that's OK. That just needs some ad hoc testing. pws