On 2023-12-07, at 06:48, Emanuel Berg <in...@dataswamp.org> wrote: > mbork 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. > > How do you access history? One item at a time?
Either that, or C-r (i.e., searching), depending on the situation. > Because if you do one task in one terminal, maybe vading > through history one item at a time will then be annoying since > items from everywhere else, from other tasks, will make you > have to cycle a lot before you find what you look for? Good point. Best, -- Marcin Borkowski https://mbork.pl --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
