From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2202 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 16:12:10 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 May 2001 16:12:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8099 invoked by alias); 10 May 2001 16:12:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14299 Received: (qmail 8075 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 16:12:04 -0000 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:11:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Wayne Davison X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: Proposed history improvements In-Reply-To: <1010510070413.ZM14821@candle.brasslantern.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 10 May 2001, Bart Schaefer wrote: > I'd much rather decide after the fact that I didn't want that command > put into the history; for example, I'd expunge all commands involving > typographical errors as soon as I'd had a chance to retrieve them and > fix the error, so that correct commands are never pushed out of the > history file by mistaken ones. Yeah, I was thinking about that too, but I hadn't decided on a good way to do it yet. I'm thinking that it might be nice to have a "delete this history line" key sequence, and perhaps a combination of that with "... and accept this line". Such a command would immediately remove the line out of the internal history, and if we're incrementally updating the history file it would have to take steps to ensure that the line was removed from everyone else reading the history file (such as adding the line with a flag after the timestamp, and leaving the flag-line around long enough that we assume all shells have read in the removal instruction -- this is kinda tricky and might not be 100% effective). > [...] HIST_IMMEDIATE_DROP, on which I have no comment except to say I > think it's extraneous.) I have no strong opinion either way, except to say that I will never use HIST_IMMEDIATE_DROP. Anyone else care to weigh in on this? ..wayne..