I like how you named and styled the command after how many terminal users actually approach these situations.
1. Hurriedly type something to solve a pressing problem. It doesn't work but tells you enough the fix should be obvious to a machine.
2. Mutter or shout "Fuck!" in head depending on how obvious problem was, how often it repeats, or just how long it takes to redo it.
3. Perform the correct action.
Your model is like the Underwear Gnomes model for problem-solving applied to terminals. They always missing step 2. Except, on step 2, you just "fuck" to get profit... err, you get to finish at Step 2 with one word. Finish faster with this technique to move on to next job in workflow.
Of course, the drawback is that the machine doesn't really know what you intended without more context than a single command line. Often it can make a good guess, but not always and sometimes it'll guess wrong, perhaps disastrously so.
Well, it's guessing the intent of a user on command line and trying to fix their problem automatically. I don't expect perfection so much as it working well enough in common situations.
But it asks for confirmation and almost always suggests more than one option. Although it isn't smart enough to remember what you chose and suggest this variant in future.
In my experience, in the wide world of programming languages Rust and Swift are really not very far apart. Swift's designers even cited Rust as an influence.
> Of course, it also greatly benefited from the
> experiences hard-won by many other languages in the
> field, drawing ideas from Objective-C, Rust, Haskell,
> Ruby, Python, C#, CLU, and far too many others to list.
