|
From: | Daniel J Sebald |
Subject: | Re: Desired behavior for bug #38485: using 'run history' twice |
Date: | Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:44:33 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 |
On 03/08/2013 09:48 PM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
On 03/08/2013 07:16 PM, Sander van Rijn wrote:Fri 08 Mar 2013 06:00:09 AM CET, *original submission:* <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?38485#comment0> Using 'run history' twice in a row leads to a segfault. The first invocation runs the previous command, whatever it was. The second invocation executes the previous command which is 'run history' and an infinite loop is generated. This isn't a common occurrence, but it isn't great behavior by the interpreter either. Sample Code: disp (1); run history run history What would be the desired behavior in this case? An error about causing an infinite loop or a recursive implementation which would make second 'run history' in the sample code also execute 'disp (1);' ?I can't replicate this problem. What is "run history" supposed to do?
Oh, run_history, with an underscore. Yes, I see there is a problem there. I'm inclined to say recursive implementation, but could that run into stack issues thereby requiring some error checking also or leave it open to potentially crash? Have to think this one over.
I point out that the help documentation for "run_history" could be improved as well. Anyway, there may be a bug in the run_history whereby the most recent history entry can't be accessed by number:
octave:24> history -5 1048 1 1049 2 1050 3 1051 4 1052 history -5 octave:25> run_history 1052 error: run_history: history specification out of range The second most recent can be accessed though: octave:29> history -5 1054 6 1055 7 1056 8 1057 9 1058 history -5 octave:30> run_history 1057 ans = 9Lastly, the non-argument version of "history" doesn't seem of much use. Is the following what it is supposed to do?
octave:34> history 1063 history octave:35> history 1064 historyI would think that a full listing of history would be a more useful thing to display, or at least default the list to, say, 25 entries.
Dan
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |