Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: append to history entry?
- X-seq: zsh-users 22290
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>, zsh-users@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: append to history entry?
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:09:54 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brasslantern-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments:references:to:subject :mime-version; bh=+xDIRYtx+JwxbEvVf2QlO4akshcecKcCXegka2w3hgw=; b=XpTjlI9j8g4DpPEm56X5U5ck6nySDtpsoeDE1oKySTxfXAj2jngCsYdI3oFqranO8e 2le5T/wLkkWqbFmRVP+ziVL4MtXu6Wv2mJ9uMImxlWRuUPIwnwibpEIxqt5qk264Ie+U sxjY/P8nll/i1MiEauLZVYUIet3dgP1BpfEensb/Drnf6XRNU9NBp8o1SMIFEnx5SUm/ 3RxOtPDLxHMXbId1CzS9NgHQJxAgL8PkazQlJ0SthSKwVv4AP2F3hu7JlVEGfsh0gXtO mNw9INscV26DjFJsaqZcjtXE3gS1+FpsaUbFViHoQyV03OYtaBATzsnkxyeefGAVT+wE kWSg==
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: Zsh Users List <zsh-users.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-users-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20161227125530.GA4796@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <161227080022.ZM519@torch.brasslantern.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Dec 27, 10:23am, Ray Andrews wrote:
} Seriously, I wish I knew if stuff like that really is part of the best
} of all possible worlds or if it is a case of fundamental errors in
} design of the first shells
Neither, really. It's a case of gradually accumulating requirements
on what shells do, rather than any flaw in the original design. In
the original design you'd have relied on external programs for all
of this stuff.
} Can't we have "print --Just-Do-It" ?
That's what the -r option is, but print doesn't control how its
arguments are processed as part of the command line parse, which is
necessary for what you asked about.
Seriously, you can't ask for a way to muck with something that is
normally handled transparently by the shell internals and then gripe
about having to replicate some of that hidden processing. Well, you
can, but it doesn't really help. :-)
Daniel is rather dogmatic about handling edge cases that I tend to
ignore for the sake of not throwing out all the details that make you
"take it on faith" (a phrase that makes ME grind my teeth whenever you
} One thing tho Bart, it seems it should be 'echo' because when the
} command line is recalled and executed, the colon throws an error
It shouldn't. There's no difference between "echo" and ":" except
that ":" discards its arguments without printing them. If you're
getting an error on ":" you've done something else to cause it.
Messages sorted by: