On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:58 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > This use case raises an interesting question: what should be the > behavior of delete-by-moving-to-trash when the Trash directory already > includes a directory by the same name as the non-directory file being > deleted? Are files in the Trash directory generally unimportant > enough to disregard these situations, or does this use case run afoul > of the ability to restore the trashed files later? > The fact that the user deleted the files means that the files were not important. If the user deleted them by mistake, then the trash serves as a last-resort to restore the files from. Trash is not a "backup".. so unlike the Emacs backup, there shouldn't be a need to store multiple revisions of trash. IMO, if a file or a directory exists by the same name in trash, the move-file-to-trash should just overwrite that.. if a foo file already exists and a foo/ dir is being trashed, then just delete the old trashed foo file and replace with the newly trashed foo/ dir. -- Kaushal Modi