🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Jochen" == Jochen Hayek <Jochen_Hayek@ACM.org> writes:
In article <JH.95Mar28220229@JRHayek.Berlin.snafu.de> Jochen_Hayek@ACM.org writes:

>>>>> "SSS" == Skoglund  <Stefan> writes:
>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr <tbm@tci002.uibk.ac.at> writes:
SSS> In article <3kpfba$k85@jak.cosy.sbg.ac.at> tbm@tci002.uibk.ac.at (Martin Michlmayr) writes:

>>>> 12) Will hurd give one a way to ask if you really meant
>>>> to say 'rm *'? How about other common stupid mistakes
>>>> a unix person might do?

Martin> This would be easy to implement. A few lines of code.

SSS> Not that easy.
SSS> Why ??
SSS> You have to decide whom is gonna do this check.
SSS> rm or the shell ??
SSS> the shell does the expansion and forward it to rm as parameters.
SSS> rm will find the list in argv.
SSS> How is rm gonna know argv is the result of a * substitution.

I'm the one who wrote this answer :
the current semantics of rm -f is that rm shouldn't ask any questions
at all. rm should simply try to do its best.

This means that you wont get any questions then an catalog is
unwritable ie rm will simply fail in this catalog.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund          I               |
sp2stes1@ida.his.se                I               |
<http://www.his.se/ida/~sp2stes1/> I         _____/0\_____
                                   I ____________O(.)O___________
H�gskolan i Sk�vde, Sverige        I      I-+-I    O    I-+-I
                                   I
                                   I      Viggen with two Rb04
---------------------------------------------------------------------