On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:45:02PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 17/04/15 12:45, Erik Auerswald wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:12:01PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > >> On 04/17/2015 10:39 AM, Ma Jiehong wrote: > >>> Currently, 'cp', 'mv' and 'ln' share the same basic syntax, that is to > >>> say the following: > >>> > >>> cp [OPTION] SOURCE DEST > >>> mv [OPTION] SOURCE DEST > >>> ln [OPTIONS] TARGET LINK_NAME > >>> [...] > >> output would be the better way. > > > > I'd say that using TARGET instead of SOURCE creates confusion that would be > > avoided by using SOURCE and DEST as with cp and mv. > > Not really, as one could still consider that > DEST was the destination of a symlink. > > How I think about it is: > > cp [OPTION] EXISTING NEW > mv [OPTION] EXISTING NEW > ln [OPTIONS] EXISTING NEW
That's good wording. Thanks, Erik
