A well written bash command will return 0 on completion, a different number on an error, will send output to standard output and take date in from standard input. And so on.

These things do not happen because the pink unicorn declares it so. These things happen becasue a well written bash command includes these things in the code.

All “oops” has to do is to invoke the opps parameter of the previously called bash command. The oops stack is where well behaved bash commands store pointers to the necessary data to undo a command. Thus, oops can use the stack to undo multiple previous commands. Not all command can be undone, just as in today’s world not all things that can be undone in word processors or file management gui’s and so on can be undone.

Certain commans, obviously, make no sense to undo. How would one undo an LS.

sort foo > bar is easy. oops deletes bar. sort foo >> bar is esy. Oops buffer stores a pointer to the last lin in bar before the command. Ooops, then, would delete the contents of the file following the pointer.

Ooops can be limited to a maximum amount of record keeping except when certain command switches are in place, which would force the command to use the overhead necessary.

I am pretty sure it would suck.

e.g.
scienceblogs.com
scientopia.org
blogs.discovermag.com

You run:

window.scrollBy(0,50); // Zero Right, 50 down

Or whatever.

QED, the requirement for it being an object oriented language is foolish.

yeah, oops in an object oriented programming language is foolish

I believe someone DID write oops …

all in one take …

… then immediately tried it out.

$ post blog “need bash undo” -v
$ oops -1
oops: ERROR: cannot undo reality. Deal with it.