Any objections to the following?

[Bruce Evans]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> <<On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:58:54 -0800, Jordan Hubbard <jkh at brierdr.com> said:
>
> > This allows:
>
> > 	rm -rf ""
>
> > To behave the same as:
>
> > 	rm -f ""
>
> > Which is to say that no diagnostic will be emitted if you're forcing
> > the operation (and ignoring errors).
>
> According to the Standard, only [ENOENT] diagnostics should be
> suppressed.

Fortunately the errno for rm -rf "" is ENOENT, so the patch needs only
a small fix.

Bruce