On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:31:36AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:10:58PM -0400, Jared Yanovich wrote: > > > + If first and last are both omitted, the previous 16 commands shall > > be listed or the previous single command shall be edited (based on the > > -l option). > > > > that kind of suggests that the "fc -l" producing those "previous 16 > > commands" should not show up as part of them, but it's arguable. > > FWIW, I think the current behaviour makes sense. For some sort of analogy, > it's like pgrep not showing the pgrep process. >
well the analogy would hold if commands like history and fc were never entered into history. but they are. and calculations like "2nd previous" cannot be easily worked out from what fc tells you. > I see no big gain in changing this, and potential annoyance. Not that I > can't remember when I last used 'history' or 'fc -l'... > > /Alexander > yes, fair enough. i'm sensing there isn;t much enthusiasm to change this. jmc
