From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3171 invoked from network); 31 Jan 1997 15:09:49 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 31 Jan 1997 15:09:49 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA14490; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:55:41 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:55:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <970131070201.ZM18974@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 07:02:01 -0800 In-Reply-To: Peter Stephenson "history-search-backward" (Jan 31, 11:47am) References: <199701311047.LAA22677@hydra.ifh.de> <8860.199701311216@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> <199701311242.NAA29501@hydra.ifh.de> In-Reply-To: Zefram "Re: history-search-backward" (Jan 31, 12:16pm) In-Reply-To: Peter Stephenson "Re: history-search-backward" (Jan 31, 1:42pm) Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list), Zefram Subject: Re: history-search-backward MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Jz-Cm1.0.IY3.iVWyo"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2858 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Jan 31, 11:47am, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: history-search-backward } } Looks like another incompatibility got in while I wasn't paying much } attention: ^[p will only search backwards on complete words. (I } remember the discussion, not the conclusion, I presume this is } intentional.) It seems to me this is going to cause lots of zsh users } endless confusion when they type part of a word, then ^[p, and nothing } happens. } } It's also incompatible with the tcsh binding (it always was a bit, but } not so drastically). It makes it essentially useless for me, too, } since I use it as a way of abbreviating the first word of a command, } but that's personal taste and I can live with } history-beginning-search-backward. I have to completely agree with Peter here. I have both history-search-backward and history-beginning-search-backward bound to keys, and use them for different things, but in both cases I expect them to work on partial words; the only difference I expect is whether they match against a prefix of the first word or a prefix of the whole line. On Jan 31, 12:16pm, Zefram wrote: } Subject: Re: history-search-backward } } That's what history-beginning-search-backward is for. It may cause } confusion, but only minimally, as the old behaviour wasn't documented. I think you have no idea how wrong you are. On Jan 31, 1:42pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: history-search-backward } } Problem is, history-beginning-search-backward only got added a few } versions ago and has never been bound, while the } history-search-backward behaviour, partly inherited from tcsh, has } been around for years and years whether documented or not and I don't } imagine the general confusion will be any less. Exactly. } It should go in the NEWS file when the release becomes official and } I'll put it in the FAQ. I can't accept that as sufficient in this case. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern