On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:07:50PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 04/17/2015 02:45 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > ln [OPTIONS] EXISTING NEW > > I stilll think this is a translation issue. > And I don't think the synopsis has to look the same as for > cp and mv. If you really want it to be changed, What about > > ln [OPTIONS] LINK_TARGET LINK_NAME > > ?
IMHO changing TARGET to LINK_TARGET does not help. Why should the synopsis for similar commands look differently? cp -l SOURCE DEST ln TARGET LINK_NAME cp -s SOURCE DEST ln -s TARGET LINK_NAME Perhaps new users should be told to stay away from ln and always use cp? *SCNR* Anyway, I have seen the confusion about ln usage by inexperienced users and just wanted to chime in. The original posters suggestion of a --reverse-order option would make matters worse IMHO. Thanks, Erik
