On 11/21/2013 09:34 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 11/21/2013 05:25 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 11/21/2013 09:18 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >>> + /* If true (and the -r option is also specified), remove all children >>> + of directory arguments, yet retaining the directory itself. */ >>> + bool children_only; >> >> Should --children-only imply -r, rather than being a no-op when -r is >> missing? > > I thought about it, but as there's no way to --no-recursive, > the posibility to alias rm='/bin/rm --children-only' would be void.
Good point (although someone using that as an alias for 'rm' is rather brave! I'd personally create an alias with a different name than rm to make it obvious that it doesn't remove the named argument; maybe alias empty='rm --children-only -r' so that 'empty dir' is a self-describing command to empty out the contents of dir). So I'm fine with your proposal of still needing an explicit -r for it to make a difference. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
