Paul Jarc wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Chet Ramey wrote: >> >>> I already explained that bash follows csh as closely as possible >>> in its history expansion implementation. >> >> Well, it doesn't: > > Sure it does ...
I have shown that it doesn't. > Where they differ is in escape/quote handling ... Like I said, it doesn't. >> Either \ acts as an escape or it doesn't > > You would like that to be true, as would lots of other people. But > the current behavior is too well-entrenched to change now without > breaking lots of people's expectations, based on bash's past behavior. I would like to know of examples of such expectations. It's not going to break any executable scripts, since it has already been pointed out to me that history expansion doesn't happen in scripts.
