|
Home > Archive > Unix questions > September 2006 > strange format of .history file
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
strange format of .history file
|
|
|
| Dear Group,
For some reason the format of my .history file, running tcsh on a
Solaris machine, has changed. If I issue a command such as
% cat .history
then the output of the file looks something like this
#+1158945659
gedit .cshrc &
#+1158945682
source .cshrc
#+1158945687
ls .h
#+1158945693
ls .hi*
#+1158945696
ls
#+1158945711
ls -a
#+1158945716
exit
#+1158945750
cat .history
These are just a few commands I entered after I noticed that the form of
..history had suddenly changed.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance
Jason
| |
| Barry Margolin 2006-09-22, 7:28 pm |
| In article <ef172s$jo8$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>, Jason <jase@no.spam.4.me>
wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> For some reason the format of my .history file, running tcsh on a
> Solaris machine, has changed. If I issue a command such as
>
> % cat .history
>
> then the output of the file looks something like this
>
> #+1158945659
> gedit .cshrc &
> #+1158945682
> source .cshrc
> #+1158945687
> ls .h
> #+1158945693
> ls .hi*
> #+1158945696
> ls
> #+1158945711
> ls -a
> #+1158945716
> exit
> #+1158945750
> cat .history
>
> These are just a few commands I entered after I noticed that the form of
> .history had suddenly changed.
>
> Any ideas?
What's the problem? It looks like an alternating sequence of timestamps
and the command that was typed at that time.
What did it used to look like?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
| |
|
| Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <ef172s$jo8$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>, Jason <jase@no.spam.4.me>
> wrote:
>
>
> What's the problem? It looks like an alternating sequence of timestamps
> and the command that was typed at that time.
>
> What did it used to look like?
>
Your are absolutely right. It was simply me been idiotic. I stupidly
thought that the timestamps would appear in the form that they appear
when one issues the history command. Sorry for wasting time on such a
trivial question, but thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
|
|