Re: revisiting history-file rewriting

[Wayne Davison <wayned@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:03:38PM +0000, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> I'm OK with this, though I think the documentation should explain in
> more detail how it interacts with APPEND_HISTORY, INC_APPEND_HISTORY,
> and SHARE_HISTORY.

Yeah, my docs were pretty minimal.

> We already have HIST_APPEND; while we're at it, perhaps we add
> HIST_APPEND_INC, HIST_SHARE, and OVERWRITE_HISTORY with appropriate
> aliasing?

I don't like OVERWRITE_HISTORY because it sounds like something that
conflicts with APPEND_HISTORY.  Perhaps my option name needs to be
improved -- how about HIST_WRITE_IN_PLACE?  That seems to better
indicate that it is effecting how the history file is written out
rather than affecting how data is put into the history file.

As for the other aliases, I wouldn't mind seeing them added.

..wayne..