closes#10845
I've opened this a little prematurely to get some questions answered
before I cleanup the code.
As I started trying to better understand GNUs `mktemp` I've realized its
kind of peculiar and we might want to change its behavior to introduce
it to nushell.
#### quiet and dry run
Does it make sense to keep the `quiet` and `dry_run` flags? I don't
think so. The GNU documentation says this about the dry run flag "Using
the output of this command to create a new file is inherently unsafe, as
there is a window of time between generating the name and using it where
another process can create an object by the same name." So yeah why keep
it? As far as quiet goes, does it make sense to silence the errors in
nushell?
#### other confusing flags
According to the [gnu
docs](https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/mktemp-invocation.html),
the `-t` flag is deprecated and the `-p`/ `--tempdir` are the same flag
with the only difference being `--tempdir` takes an optional path, Given
that, I've broken the `-p` away from `--tempdir`. Now there is one
switch `--tmpdir`/`-t` and one named param `--tmpdir-path`/`-p`.
GNU mktemp
```
-p DIR, --tmpdir[=DIR] interpret TEMPLATE relative to DIR; if DIR is not
specified, use $TMPDIR if set, else /tmp. With
this option, TEMPLATE must not be an absolute name;
unlike with -t, TEMPLATE may contain slashes, but
mktemp creates only the final component
-t interpret TEMPLATE as a single file name component,
relative to a directory: $TMPDIR, if set; else the
directory specified via -p; else /tmp [deprecated]
```
to
nushell mktemp
```
-p, --tmpdir-path <Filepath> # named param, must provide a path
-t, --tmpdir # a switch
```
Is this a terrible idea?
What should I do?
---------
Co-authored-by: Darren Schroeder <343840+fdncred@users.noreply.github.com>
