On 8/19/24 1:39 PM, Grisha Levit wrote:
This was actually caught by the test suite
Yes, thanks for the report.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru
The problem with the tagged format is that it's *not* usable by grep
Awk would have no problem with it.
limited to exactly whatever magic is built into the "history" command
That's where the magic should be. If that were the official interface
to `.bash_history`, then bash has freedom to i
The problem with the tagged format is that it's *not* usable by grep, so
you're limited to exactly whatever magic is built into the "history"
command.
"Yuck" is in the eye of the beholder. I've tried numerous other ways to
segregate sessions, and IMO multiple files was the "least yuck" of many
wor
Bash or no bash, spreading history over dozens of files in
`bash_history.d/` is yuck. We already have a comment with the timestamp
in `.bash_history`. If I were implementing the suggestion, I would add
more information to the comment, then add two new flags to the `history`
command that filter
On Monday, August 19, 2024, Koichi Murase wrote:
>
> One can put " diff=no" in .git/info/attributes to
> ignore these files in `git diff'.
This is a very good idea. Marking auto-generated files as binary in
/.gitattributes would address OP's concerns without changing how Bash is
built.
--
Oğu
> ... but that would increase the "build toolset" that
> everyone would have to install ...
This doesn't make much sense unless every other program
is built the same way. (A stark counterexample is Emacs.)
IOW, that wouldn't increase the "build toolset" much
because there probably be
"Missing/disappearing history" is entirely down to the lack of "writing
history as you go", and yes that would be reasonable to offer as a new
opt-in feature.
As for separation of sessions, I strongly suspect that anything between
*total* separation and *none* will result in so many ugly compromis
