From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6113 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2012 15:18:21 -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: 30130 Received: (qmail 6638 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2012 15:18:06 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender) X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: zsh-workers@zsh.org From: Bernhard Tittelbach Subject: Re: Question about _history-complete-older Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:17:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <120126235114.ZM2826@torch.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: rain.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100411 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 In-Reply-To: <120126235114.ZM2826@torch.brasslantern.com> On 2012-01-27 08:51, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Jan 26, 8:10pm, Bernhard Tittelbach wrote: > } > } In my zsh version 4.3.11, _history-complete-newer completes a word from > } the history, beginning with the oldest words in the history, > } while _history-complete-older completes a word from history starting > } with the most recent entries. > > That's because they wrap around if they don't find anything. So if > you do "newer" starting from the end, it will immediately find nothing > and then wrap to the beginning and start from there; similarly "older" > from the end (most recent) will work backward from there. > > Thus "newer" and "older" are relative to the entry on which you start > searching, not relative to each other; they refer to the direction of > the search, not to the recency of the entries they find. Thanks for clarifying :) regards, Bernhard