> - "Create a symbolic link named @var{oldpath} with the value\n"
> - "(i.e., pointing to) @var{newpath}. The return value is\n"
> + "Create a symbolic link named @var{newpath} with the value\n"
> + "(i.e., pointing to) @var{oldpath}. The return value is\n"
This is weird terminology.
First the "new vs old" is meaningless for a symlink since the target may
not even exist. In "man ln" the terminology used is "link-name vs
target" which I think is a lot more clear (Elisp's `make-symbolic-link'
uses "filename vs linkname" which is not as good).
Second, the GNU coding standards says:
Please do not use the term "pathname" that is used in Unix
documentation; use "file name" (two words) instead. We use the term
"path" only for search paths, which are lists of directory names.
so none of the two args should be named "<something>path".
Stefan
