On 2023-09-24 23:12, Owen Chia wrote: > Specifically, I would like to suggest the removal > of the '-f' short option, while retaining > the '--force' long option.
What are you going to do to fix the three billion, two-hundred and thirty-seven million, seven-hundred and fifty-six thousand, nine-hundred and three scripts (including makefiles) which use "rm -f"? Pardon me, nine-hundred and nineteen; sixteen more were just written since I started writing that number. > The rationale behind this proposal stems from > the observation that the '-f' short option has led to > numerous accidental deletions due to its ease of > use and associated muscle memory. Ideas: Replace your rm command by a shell function which filters out the -f option (but not --force), then calls the real command. Replace your rm command by a shell function which asks you a random skill-testing question if you use --force, and also to close your eyes, stretch out your right arm and then touch your nose; as well as walk in a straight line. Replace your rm command by a shell function which sleeps for 15 seconds and then does the remove, or at least when -f is used, so if you hit Ctrl-C within that time, nothing happened yet. Maybe your problem is that you're too hurried! Replace your rm command by a look-alike that stages removed files and directories through a recycle bin, from which they can easily be recovered. Set up editor backups. Set up actual backups. Use git, so at most you lose uncommitted changes to files, not entire files.
