[erlang-questions] Erlang Shell History: enabled.
Tue Nov 22 00:11:13 CET 2011
I thought of this. I can definitely change it for kernel_history, but
'shell_history' wouldn't make sense given: a) the module is in the 'kernel'
application, b) the 'shell' module is actually in the 'stdlib' application.
This one operates on 'group', which runs within kernel.
My decision was made from the idea that whatever usually is in OTP ends up
having no prefix, although user-created applications tend to prefix
themselves. I thus relied on the vague (and pretty much guaranteed to be
wrong) assumption that people would name their own libraries reasonably
using prefixes fitting their own application names.
I can definitely rename the module if people feel it's too much of a
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Kostis Sagonas <kostis@REDACTED> wrote:
> On 11/21/11 20:31, Fred Hebert wrote:
>> Oh yeah, in case anyone is wondering how invasive of a patch this is,
>> this is the diff between the default R14B04 group.erl file and the new
>> < put(line_buffer, proplists:get_value(line_buffer, Options,
>> > put(line_buffer, proplists:get_value(line_buffer, Options, )),
>> < history:add(Line),
>> Literally two lines changed, and it should not harm the current
>> behaviour of the shell other than loading history.
> The real evasiveness is of course not in these two lines but in that the
> name of the new module ('history') which may clash with similarly named
> files in many user applications.
> Perhaps a name like 'shell_history' is more appropriate for the new module?
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions