Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:32:08 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>, Daniel.Bye@uk.uu.net, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pesky file Message-ID: <14888.13560.811822.742841@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20001201225640.A2189@buffy.local> References: <119603073@toto.iv> <14888.4617.148599.530943@guru.mired.org> <20001201225640.A2189@buffy.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> types: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 03:03:05PM -0600, Mike Meyer wrote: > > Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> types: > > > rm -- -help > > > > > > or rm -i ?help > > > > That won't work any more than "rm *help" would. The problem with both > > of them is that the shell expands the metacharacters, so that rm sees > > the "-" first, so thinks it's an argument. > You are wrong btw, "rm -- -help" will work just fine :) > "--" is a feature of rm (and mv etc) to get around this very problem. > Before saying "that's wont work", take 23 seconds to try it out. Actually, I *knew* it would work. What doesn't work is "rm -i ?help". I thought I made it clear which of the two I was talking about in the second paragraph of my post, which elided: : Just FWIW, if you happen to be on a system that doesn't recognize the : "--" convention (or need to run a command that doesn't), you can : >always do "rm ./-help". I'm sorry I wasn't explicit enough for you, Cliff. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14888.13560.811822.742841>