From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15102 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2015 01:50:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 35349 Received: (qmail 13414 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2015 01:50:22 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gf8hfpIvTEa3+clbqc+EXWAclAPyfmU0m/onj0anjOs=; b=AJk4knvqShhmanv+YEK0EDNrT7riyr1kKT8ct9Wf8Cqwb+blEmoOR/679O2JxW9EWb y9mi8FlmDH2T5NNTcplqqppsn/0UNlXdu4mvJ4s+qnSr345+TBFUQ4psFZ/RcPxo9JJO +1n5o7sa21XQp47oHGnWs8BbQwzlc3dmMFinoUIDjxp1j0uNUoSBk2FJkNZm7g4LE+wL RuPHGowudLDVWVdTl9od04cQBUKjp1KFfwxugW7b7gUiroQilz91MJ4C7VA6WO8bjzlR LLH8c3hyi4uWF5AnPUFQf1rhFfUQCjueCmruGowqsnI0jp9fJY7tYD2EScLCzl+y/nr6 ZzOA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.61.166 with SMTP id q6mr10261245igr.14.1433123419075; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:50:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <150531165942.ZM13040@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <87r3q7nzkr.fsf@gmail.com> <150529171657.ZM15077@torch.brasslantern.com> <150530154236.ZM17511@torch.brasslantern.com> <12467.1433064564@thecus.kiddle.eu> <150531165942.ZM13040@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 03:50:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Finding the first history event of the current instance From: Mikael Magnusson To: Bart Schaefer Cc: Zsh workers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On May 31, 11:29am, Oliver Kiddle wrote: > } Subject: Re: Finding the first history event of the current instance > } > } > The options -N (new), -O (old), and -F (foreign) are all currently unused > } > by "fc" if we wanted to add multiple filterings. > } > } I think I'd favour +L for foreign (i.e. not local). It's easier to > } remember that way. > > That'd be fine by me, but read on. > > } I'm not sure how the option parser works but that may > } change the meaning of fc + which isn't ideal. > > I don't think it'll affect that at all. However, it will mean that > "fc +l" has the same meaning as "fc -l", unless we do a lot of special > processing. (Same for +r/-r etc.) So maybe we don't want that. It's also a lot less discoverable by fc -. And maybe a bit confusing that neither -L nor +L would be the default. -- Mikael Magnusson