Re: Patches item #1729825 ready to go.

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Ethan Merritt wrote:
> On Friday 08 June 2007 11:11, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> 
>>2) Can we deprecate "historysize".  (I've currently programmed "set history <n>" 
>>and "set historysize <n>" to be the same.)
> 
> 
> ??
> I don't understand the question.
> For as far back as I have sources for, "set history" has always been
> shorthand for "set historysize".  What, exactly, would you be deprecating?
> If you just mean:
> 
> tables.c
> 182: -    { "his$torysize", S_HISTORYSIZE },
> 182: +    { "his$tory", S_HISTORYSIZE },
> 
> I don't see any point.

Well, the following would be kind of awkward:

   Syntax:
         set historysize {<int>} {numbered|quiet} {full|ignoredups|condensed}
         unset historysize

(We're changing the properties of the history.  Not the historysize.)

I've changed the table to

      { "hid$den3d", S_HIDDEN3D },
-    { "his$torysize", S_HISTORYSIZE },
+    { "his$tory", S_HISTORY },
+    { "historys$ize", S_HISTORYSIZE },
      { "is$osamples", S_ISOSAMPLES },

so that

   set his #
   set historys #

do the same thing.  I'm fine with leaving it like that, but just wonder if 
retaining "historysize" as duplicate behavior is that important.

Dan