In bash, you can type ^R, then text, to search that text in history interactively. Hit ^R again, if you want to see another match of same text. It saves lot of typing.
It sucks though. The shortcuts are kind of annoying (Ctrl-r, Ctrl-s) and there's no visual cues about the list you're going through.
The feature I use the most is automatic history search by typing part of a command and hitting UP to search the history.
Doesn't bash have that same feature? Or is there some subtle difference between what you're describing and what bash does?
UP in bash swaps the commandline to your previous command, it does not search in your history. either way, please don't move your fingers all the way to your arrow keys for this.
I guess I'm still missing something here. In bash you can type the first couple of characters of a command and the PGUP (or whatever key you map for this) and it searches backwards through your history for matching commands. What does fish do differently?
> The feature I use the most is automatic history search by typing part of a command and hitting UP to search the history.
This is available in bash/sh by setting this in your ~/.inputrc file:
"\e[A": history-search-backward
"\e[B": history-search-forward
"\e[C": forward-char
"\e[D": backward-char
Re:Why Create a New Unix Shell?
by ComputerGuru on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:48PM
(#16278267)
I used bash first, then zsh. You have to try fish, it shows a "ghost" of the first matching autocompletion on the same line, which changes dynamically as you type. It also has a cool memory effect for figuring out history completions based off the directory you are in.
Like csh on FreeBSD, alt+(up/down) can be used to search history for arguments instead of lines, so if you do something like
touch some/long/directory/path/to/file
....
rm so<ALT+up>
fish will search all individual arguments (correctly handling quoted spaces, etc) for arguments starting with "so" and it'll suggest the path in question, even though the head here (`rm`) differs from the original (`touch` in this case).
Re:Why Create a New Unix Shell?
by brokenmachine on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @10:53PM
(#16279532)
That sounds a bit dangerous, especially with rm.
As always, with great power comes great responsibility I guess.
Re:Why Create a New Unix Shell?
by kevin_thibedeau on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:35PM
(#16278171)
Or just use ctrl-R et al.
The feature I use the most is automatic history search by typing part of a command and hitting UP to search the history. I also find the scripting language more straight-forward.