Re: "rm" bug

[Bob Proulx]

James Youngman wrote:
> While I think about it, it might also be worth enhancing
> the --help output to point out that "rm ./*" is safe while "rm *"
> might do things you did not expect (think "touch ./-rf").

It just seems so scary putting in a suggestion "rm ./*".  Also I might
debate as to the "safer" wording.  I know you mean less "likely to be
confused as an option".  In which case I would say that instead of the
word safe.  Safe implies not going to do unindented damage.  But a
command like rm by intent removes files.  And just the same we all
know people who have removed files and then said oops, I wanted my
file back, isn't there some way to make rm safe where it refuses to
remove files that I might actually want to keep even though I told it
to remove them?  :-)  I agree with Paul, let's let sleeping dogs lie.

Bob