Cam Cope wrote:
Combine tab completion with history: when you put ! at the beginning of a
command and use tab completion, it displays history results
IMHO yet a new history expansion/editing/searching mechanism (there
already are a few) would bloat it even more.
But that's just my opinion.
J.
Cam Cope wrote:
Combine tab completion with history: when you put ! at the beginning of a
command and use tab completion, it displays history results
What do you mean by `history results'?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRUc...@case.edu
I'm sorry if the feature has already been implemented, I haven't heard of
any way to implement it. This is what I was thinking of:
Right now, if you run history, it will list out all the recently used
commands, and then you could run !360 to run that history result. Often I'm
looking for a
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:01:51PM -0400, Cam Cope wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Chet Ramey chet.ra...@case.edu wrote:
Cam Cope wrote:
Combine tab completion with history: when you put ! at the beginning of a
command and use tab completion, it displays history results
What
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:01:51PM EDT, Cam Cope wrote:
I'm sorry if the feature has already been implemented, I haven't heard
of any way to implement it. This is what I was thinking of: Right now,
if you run history, it will list out all the recently used commands,
and then you could run
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:16:12PM EDT, Ken Irving wrote:
This sounds a lot like what you get with the reverse-search-history
command, bound to control-r (C-r), a great feature indeed.
Priceless.
I had posted the following obfuscated explanation a couple of hours ago
but since I was
Chris Jones wrote:
I had posted the following obfuscated explanation a couple of hours ago
but since I was subscribed under a different address, it never made it
to the list.
:-(
Actually it seems to have made it to the okay. No need for an unhappy
face. You do not need to be subscribed
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:59:36PM EDT, Bob Proulx wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
I had posted the following obfuscated explanation a couple of hours
ago but since I was subscribed under a different address, it never
made it to the list.
:-(
Actually it seems to have made it to the
