From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-39643-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 16276 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2016 21:33:12 -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: 39643
Received: (qmail 29577 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2016 21:33:12 -0000
X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from <sgniazdowski@gmail.com>, uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 
 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1.  
 Clear:RC:0(209.85.220.172):SA:0(0.0/5.0):. 
 Processed in 0.307899 secs); 14 Oct 2016 21:33:12 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_PASS,
	T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1
X-Envelope-From: sgniazdowski@gmail.com
X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: |
X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: |
Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc;
        bh=ZLAnJLXQsyqfCtLX3V4Qh2fyMREnbcbEifgF0Ao91zs=;
        b=OOrvQu1x0ZUiONVdqgFPPZHaKzTAk6/hIt+GtZpHDCtHXUJv+j7NMmDNgtNCUG2XiT
         YOLmY16Gx/D/KUX8HcSBTSTGHxVl12djKGF/EvwZs2BDUZnv9/6F3HS7zgk9AoYgqL6L
         v33hhp9Lr7eApPBoGPN3xLCb5sDaA63bs+rntczCPcQzcmFvdPlBb4VIL9hqs+kKPqJ3
         Nsc6+DaUa5hDw4k6yypm6WR4SWg/oaek5pw+o0etnkx4rCYg8JgRHcC4j7b4Yl8zx658
         8/vDkle91uUTspTB6h/Lx5izufc33KTgVYjlxi8LDxQOEXZnElKy+ZhLZuWo/HZIKhys
         cswA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc;
        bh=ZLAnJLXQsyqfCtLX3V4Qh2fyMREnbcbEifgF0Ao91zs=;
        b=N98YBx0hoLQ9+DX1MIPL5ydwllUvSA6BBl7eP/IZdBxvCsZszFBIjbZWdPeVM8RTM2
         nqHMaZjF9oALZlZfQ9k1Hb9YMMICP5M6bpS7seqMSl/q1BIcerhj2jqVngys5cBoZkqS
         0U4XfAmR7s0ILGDvmVqDToW/HPjf4/FYhrpPGU81cZRbuIxQqTxjxB8a3QGzmkpqaJ4o
         JTzNRoEUczs2yGSDOGznq3hJ7SJRQC97rosreC5n257/cKDM1B8r6GlX6iIjE8zVL6HP
         3MI5GTEXTdJhra8im/Lnw8GtkVS0sIjOt45fbf7Qd0Wve5mJ7TTHUBuQfnxP4eLtB6nC
         Pnsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rk+SmNZIurVESy3zJGRaV74jaC14yjLKt3Xtn45l+hDtxWsbetdHfGUUUhF6s/BgD7O0xSpGR7JG1ltHw==
X-Received: by 10.55.140.199 with SMTP id o190mr3869993qkd.299.1476470146389;
 Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH+w=7bxHu3D1O5JPOAOi0mokXtzJY7iFCTJrV90izqmemAH1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKc7PVDE94RMgquJtPU5hgBoC0TUSNHzfocZV7DXgajtJME2jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH+w=7bxHu3D1O5JPOAOi0mokXtzJY7iFCTJrV90izqmemAH1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sebastian Gniazdowski <sgniazdowski@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:35:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKc7PVCPb8gXtLF3Sy6O4Hkens_BTLG+wxkhC42nf-sjL1epDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: $history[@] doesn't contain last element from $HISTFILE
To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Cc: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 14 October 2016 at 19:44, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> This is a side-effect of the implementation of history, specifically
> that even with HISTSIZE=0 there is always one line (the immediately
> previous command) available for recall with up-history.  Hence that
> final line is not actually "committed" into the history until the NEXT
> line is read, at which time it either goes into the history "for real"
> or is discarded.
>
> I pass no judgement at this time on Sebastian's assertion of whether
> the contents of $history[@] "should be" different, though it is
> potentially unexpected that $history[$HISTNO] is special-cased.

It's fine if it's not an unpredictable thing, I can stick to the
workaround (now not actually a workaround), not having to do an
is-at-least call in return. Although I'm not sure if by
$history[$HISTNO] you mean $history[$size], if there is something
unexpected there, it would be a problem.

Best regards,
Sebastian Gniazdowski