On 2023-12-06, at 21:49, Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote: > That makes a kind of sense, but what I would envision is that each > Bash process has its own history with only the commands of that process. > > Why do you prefer the shared history file approach > to the one-history-per-process approach?
Isn't it obvious? If I have several terminals open at the same time (and I seldom have fewer than, say, three, usually more), sharing history is very useful. It easy to remember that I issued some kind of command, but much more difficult to remember in which terminal I did it. Sharing history lessens my cognitive load. Also, when I exit bash, the history is written to ~/.bash_history. So, if I have two bash sessions, they share the common history from that file, but not common history from /this session/. So the "every bash process has a separate history" is not even true -- /part/ of the history is shared. Again, remembering which part adds to the cognitive load. Sharing history "live" makes it much simpler. -- Marcin Borkowski https://mbork.pl --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
