Re: Finding the first history event of the current instance

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 31, 11:29am, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
} Subject: Re: Finding the first history event of the current instance
}
} > The options -N (new), -O (old), and -F (foreign) are all currently unused
} > by "fc" if we wanted to add multiple filterings.
} 
} I think I'd favour +L for foreign (i.e. not local). It's easier to
} remember that way.

That'd be fine by me, but read on.

} I'm not sure how the option parser works but that may
} change the meaning of fc + which isn't ideal.

I don't think it'll affect that at all.  However, it will mean that
"fc +l" has the same meaning as "fc -l", unless we do a lot of special
processing.  (Same for +r/-r etc.)  So maybe we don't want that.

} For new/old, one option would be to have a special token such as "-",
} ".", "^" or "0" that can be used to indicate the history number
} when the shell started.

What if someone loads (or reloads) history with "fc -R"?  Ought those
be considered "new" in the current shell?

} Admittedly, this doesn't allow you to get a history entry matching a
} pattern from the old entries.

You can use -m with a range:

schaefer<502> fc -l -m echo\* 101 200
fc: no matching events found
schaefer<503> fc -l -m echo\* 201 300
  250  echo $CPATH