I wonder: would it not be better to tell users with those edge cases to fix their problems some other way? To take an example from the article: why does someone have a filename beginning with a dash? Maybe don't do that.
I also chafe whenever I run into artificial restrictions on things like characters in names of things, because there's no good reason for them besides the laziness of developers or the limitations and inertia of existing systems that might be used under the hood, like DNS for instance.
"User-controlled strings as parameters" is not "access to your git" but it is still an attack vector.
Oh, the famous "you're holding it wrong". For one, that's a ridiculous limitation to place on the user, that's a pretty basic symbol, but also imagine someone else did that and you can't change it because it's outside of your control
Because it's my computer, not yours, and I'll do what I want with it?
This is not a theory. I work in such a system every day.
git sort of tried that with plumbing/porcelain separation and bash scripts, but it did not quite work. It all became a C monolith with very peculiar UX.
It's also very discoverable if you see it in the wild. You may be surprised that `--` doesn't work, but you won't be surprised `--end-of-options` represents the end of options.
What problem does this actually cause you? What additional complexity has adding this feature added to your development cycle?