[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My real meaning in my last mail is that when we carry out a
> command exactly in a second time ,in fact we could not need
> to create a new one but we use the old one and locate
> ourselves on the location of the old command.If we could
Hi,
For bash-3.1 and bash-3.2, I write a script a.sh like this:
Test(){
history abc
echo "FAIL"
}
Test
Execute "bash a.sh", and "FAIL" can't be printed. Why should 'history' be
designed like this?
I think it's better to continue execute the next command even if his
Dear Eric :
Thank you for your mail and response.
I think that I could understand what you said in you mail,but it maybe
could not fit what I really need in my last mail.
I have try your method(the shotrcut -- control+r) and it is a very
convenient tool for me because wi
