Re: PATCH: print -S uses lexical history

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 31,  9:37pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} As we've had all the pain of the HIST_LEX_WORDS option, which almost no
} one is using, to split a history line into words using the lexical
} analyser, it's worth making this available directly using a relative of
} "print -s" imaginatively called "print -S".

This is nice, but I have to ask ... why not just make the behavior of
"print -s" dependend on the current setting of the option?  In what
circumstances would one wish to (be able to choose at the level of
individual commands to) have part of the history in lexed form and
part of it not?

I guess strictly speaking one already gets that effect when the option
is off, as the loaded history will be unlexed and the interactively
appeneded remainder lexed; so one could also argue that "print -s"
should simply always go the lexing route, but I suppose there are also
cases where speed might be a factor.