Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Finding the first history event of the current instance
- X-seq: zsh-workers 35349
- From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Finding the first history event of the current instance
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 03:50:19 +0200
- Cc: Zsh workers <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gf8hfpIvTEa3+clbqc+EXWAclAPyfmU0m/onj0anjOs=; b=AJk4knvqShhmanv+YEK0EDNrT7riyr1kKT8ct9Wf8Cqwb+blEmoOR/679O2JxW9EWb y9mi8FlmDH2T5NNTcplqqppsn/0UNlXdu4mvJ4s+qnSr345+TBFUQ4psFZ/RcPxo9JJO +1n5o7sa21XQp47oHGnWs8BbQwzlc3dmMFinoUIDjxp1j0uNUoSBk2FJkNZm7g4LE+wL RuPHGowudLDVWVdTl9od04cQBUKjp1KFfwxugW7b7gUiroQilz91MJ4C7VA6WO8bjzlR LLH8c3hyi4uWF5AnPUFQf1rhFfUQCjueCmruGowqsnI0jp9fJY7tYD2EScLCzl+y/nr6 ZzOA==
- In-reply-to: <150531165942.ZM13040@torch.brasslantern.com>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <150529171657.ZM15077@torch.brasslantern.com> <150530154236.ZM17511@torch.brasslantern.com> <email@example.com> <150531165942.ZM13040@torch.brasslantern.com>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 31, 11:29am, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> } Subject: Re: Finding the first history event of the current instance
> } > The options -N (new), -O (old), and -F (foreign) are all currently unused
> } > by "fc" if we wanted to add multiple filterings.
> } I think I'd favour +L for foreign (i.e. not local). It's easier to
> } remember that way.
> That'd be fine by me, but read on.
> } I'm not sure how the option parser works but that may
> } change the meaning of fc + which isn't ideal.
> I don't think it'll affect that at all. However, it will mean that
> "fc +l" has the same meaning as "fc -l", unless we do a lot of special
> processing. (Same for +r/-r etc.) So maybe we don't want that.
It's also a lot less discoverable by fc -<tab>. And maybe a bit
confusing that neither -L nor +L would be the default.
Messages sorted by: