On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 04:35:04PM -0500, Dan Mack wrote: > Definately different. Better? Maybe for some. I most always search > command history by prefix and then just using multiple ESC-p invocations > to find the one command to edit/re-execute. Less frequently I want to > search the whole text of history for the whole command line sequence > like bash Ctrl-R accomplishes.
Agreed, search-by-prefix needed a lot more often than ^R one (search anywhere). That's why it makes sense to bind it to the arrows. > >>> "\ep": history-search-backward > >>> "\en": history-search-forward > > > Interesting that you mapped these to cursor-up/cursor-down. > > > > That may cause unexpected results. > > > For example, typing something and then pressing up-arrow will cause > > the shell to give you the previous command that started with that > > rather than the previous command in-general. That's exactly what I want, to type vi<up> and instantly get to the editing command (skipping all cd's and ls's I might've done in between). > It's ESC-p/ESC-n, not just plain up-arrow/down-arrow. Up arrow still > does up without any search. At least with my config using \ep as shown. > My up arrows work for me as expected - they just iterate forward and > backward through shell history. I find this separation useless and actually mitigating the good. When I want to scroll the history without any search I'd simply won't type anything. Binding prefix-search to ESC-p/ESC-n, not up-arrow/down-arrow is beyond me. Empty command line gives you plain iteratation, typing anything limit iteratation over commands starting with typed prefix. ./danfe _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
