Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cwjcc!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery)
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: Bash suggestion
Message-ID: <1990Jan15.001453.17288@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 15 Jan 90 00:14:53 GMT
References: <9001140222.AA18573@drivax.dri>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery)
Followup-To: gnu.bash.bug
Distribution: gnu
Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 23

As quoted from <9001140222.AA18573@drivax.dri> by think!ames!amdahl!drivax!davison@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Wayne Davison):
+---------------
| Other optimizations could be made to save memory or to preferentially drop
| duplicate commands from a stifled history space rather than old unique ones.
| (One memory-saving example: use the DUPLICATE's line string when saving the
| new entry, and only free the line on deletion when it is a REAL line.)
+---------------

I can see potential problems, especially if one adds a new form of history
mechanism which might free up history space in some other order; an
alternative is to keep a usage count on the command and free it only when the
usage count drops to 0.  (I assume from "set history_control" that one can
have multiple history maintenance methods; and it is certainly worth
considering that one might have multiple modes for different ways of dealing
with single aspects of history control, or even a set-up like Emacs' major/
minor modes ("set history_control=(major minor ...)").

++Brandon
-- 
Brandon S. Allbery    allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi)
      uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@cwjcc.cwru.edu
*(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)*
*Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*