[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#20354: [feature request] ln with command line arguments in reverse o
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
bug#20354: [feature request] ln with command line arguments in reverse order |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:38:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 |
tag 20354 wontfix
close 20354
stop
On 18/04/15 07:09, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 04/17/2015 04:52 PM, Erik Auerswald wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:45:02PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> How I think about it is:
>>>
>>> cp [OPTION] EXISTING NEW
>>> mv [OPTION] EXISTING NEW
>>> ln [OPTIONS] EXISTING NEW
>>
>> That's good wording.
>
> IMO there's no gain if the operand names are the same, because
> then the users would have to know the tool even better. Such
> distinction makes the users help to remember how the tool works.
> So at least for ln(1), the word LINK_NAME is perfect.
>
> FWIW this was Jim's change to improve the wording back in 1998:
>
> http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=519365bb089c
I agree. NEW above is ambiguous for example,
as DEST can already exist. Also EXISTING in the ln
case is not accurate, since the target doesn't
need to exist.
I was just indicating how I summarise the usual
use case for these in my mind, but can't think of
any improvement to the more accurate existing wording.
cheers,
Pádraig.
bug#20354: [feature request] ln with command line arguments in reverse order, Ma Jiehong, 2015/04/19