Re: history-incremental-search-backward weird behavior for multiline commands in 5.0.x

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:54:17 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 16,  5:30pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } Subject: Re: history-incremental-search-backward weird behavior for multil
> }
> } I think the load parsing must be broken --- I'm pretty sure it always
> } used doubled backslashes to signal this and it obviously used to work.
> 
> This appears to have somethign to do with workers/28332 and 28339, but
> I'm not yet sure exactly what.

Certainly if I comment out code in readhistline() as follows, it reads
back in again the same as 4.3.11 (which just happens to be the first old
version that worked).

	else {
	    buf[len - 1] = '\0';
	    if (len > 1 && buf[len - 2] == '\\' /*&&
		(len < 3 || buf[len - 3] != '\\')*/) {
		buf[--len - 1] = '\n';
		if (!feof(in))
		    return readhistline(len, bufp, bufsiz, in);
	    }
	}

However, that's not the whole story --- the extended history is written
out with each segment:

: 1405536461:0;echo foo \\
: 1405536465:0;bar \\
: 1405536465:0;rod

which can't be right because it reads back as

echo foo \          
: 1405536465:0;bar \
: 1405536465:0;rod

in both the latest code and 4.3.11.  The latter saves without the
extended history,

: 1405536927:0;echo foo1 \\
bar1 \\
rod1

pws