Renaming the trash-cli command?

Question

I am a trash-cli project developer.

The trash-cli project is an open source implementation of the FreeDesktop.org Recycle Bin specification, which provides a command-line interface for managing trash.

Ideally, trash-cli provides the following commands:

• trash (files and directories for trashes files)
• trash-empty (empty trash can (s))
• trash-list (list of files with a breakdown)
• trash-restore (repair a damaged file)

But I have to rename the 'trash' command because this name is too common to add to Fedora's cart (see full discussion here )

I chose the name 'trash' because I think this is the best name you could use (short and intuitive), but, as I said, I can not use this name.

In any case, I believe that a good choice preserves the garbage form - *, because it uses TAB shell termination.

In the beginning I was persuaded to rename the "trash" command to "trash-file", but I do not really like it, and as Christoph Bloch pointed out :

My arguments against "trash-file": * This is unintuitive and therefore unnecessarily difficult to remember. * It's too long. * Each change in the name of the program is confusing, so the new solution should be a clear improvement (which is not the case). * This is even wrong: directories can also be damaged.

Just "trash" was much better.

I put together some ideas for renaming the trash command. Would you help me choose the best? Do you know a better name?

Here are the alternatives (some of them are ugly, I know this, but maybe they help you to find the best name):

• put trash
• trash put in
• thrash trash
• thrash throw
• trash
• thrash gt
• recycling garbage
• thrash do

• trash to

• garbage -

• trash now
• garbage -
• trash2
• garbage

• trashit

• thrash element

• thrash record
• thrash ale
• trash way

• garbage data

• trash is

• thrash something
• trash that

Answer 1

trash-put (for brevity and clarity) or trash-this (for ease of input, since this consists of easily typed characters - especially for the OO programmer ;-)

Answer 2

Perhaps follow the UNIX path and use the shortest possible name.

tf ? - although the objection that it also processes directories remains.

Please note that the word "trash" is perceived in Britain as Americanism. I am not sure about other English speaking countries. Apple clearly did not care about non-American feelings when they called Trash Can. I think Red Hat isn't either (or just followed Apple) either.

Answer 3

Why is it not necessary to have one command with different arguments for the necessary actions?

basket list
trash is empty
trash restore {<file>} *

I understand that this goes against the UNIX path in the strict sense, but they all work on the same object, so I would make an argument, for this there should be one command, not a group of commands.

---

As for renaming "garbage" to something else, in fact? Wow, I think the "trash" is actually quite intuitive compared to the alternatives. Some alternatives:

• trashcan or just tc
• trash bin or just wb

Answer 4

How about just:

trash-put trash - *

Answer 5

Perhaps another synonym will be better?

• refuse
• fling
• toss
• chuck
• alienate
• scrap
• junk
• recycle

Answer 6

Thanks to everyone.

It seems that -put is preferred. Also on the [e-mail] mailing list, I received positive feedback for this team.

Perhaps the command names will be as follows:

• trash-put (put files (or directories) in the trash)
• trash-empty (empty trash can (s))
• trash-list (list of files with a breakdown)
• trash-restore (repair a damaged file)