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.
