Re: PATCH: history improvements for 3.1.5-pws-17 and 3.0.6-pre-2

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Another message I wish I could have replied to sooner.

On May 10,  9:53am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: history improvements for 3.1.5-pws-17 and 3.0.6-pre-2
}
} Wayne Davison wrote:
} > I'd be interested in suggestions for how we can let the user choose
} > between local-history and full-history movement.  Perhaps a toggle
} > command?  Or a bindable prefix (so I can have ^P ignore shared
} > history, and Up-Arrow include it)?  I like this idea.
} 
} You mean something like a toggle, either for the next command only or
} permanently?  That might work.  You could then have a zle widget
} 
} up-line-or-local-history {
}   zle toggle-local-history
}   zle up-line-or-history
} }

Ugh.  I hate toggles.  You can't ask what state you're starting in, and
thus you can't know what state you should end up in.  What if I'm already
using local history when I invoke up-line-or-local-history?

If we're going to have any more toggles (overwrite-mode is the only one
we have so far, I think) then let's establish some kind of convention for
the behavior of numeric prefixes; such as, a negative prefix always turns
the toggled behavior off, a positive prefix always turns it on, and no
prefix switches between off and on.

And then somebody please fix "zle digit-argument", see zsh-workers/4099.
(Probably applies to universal-argument and neg-argument as well.)

} > I think that some zle commands, such as accept_and_infer_next_
} > history, should remain unaffected by foreign commands.

Oh, definitely.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com