Re: HISTCHARS

[Richard Coleman <coleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > I think it makes more sense for it to be HISTCHARS, since this is consistent
> > with the case of HISTFILE and HISTSIZE.  I now believe this to be more
> > important than compatibility with bash or csh.
> 
> I think that presently much more people use bash than zsh, especially
> because all Linux distributions come with bash as the default login shell.
> It is easier to convince these people about the superiority of zsh if we
> provide better compatibility.  And probably even more people use csh or
> tcsh out there.
> 
> Zoltan
> 

Yes, but compability has its limits.  It's fine if zsh is compatible
with ksh (and sh).  But when we try to make zsh compatible with every
shells (by also worrying about csh, tcsh and bash compatibility), it
starts to get too unwieldy.  No shell can do everything.  The art is in
picking the correct set of compromises.

rc