4 ms·
Well, you're linking TO something and not FROM something so target seems more accurate(they are essentially pointers). I'm honestly surprised about the help co
by Rapzid 7y ago
Well, you're linking TO something and not FROM something so target seems more accurate(they are essentially pointers).
I'm honestly surprised about the help confusion though:
ln --help
Usage: ln [OPTION]... [-T] TARGET LINK_NAME (1st form)
- inimino 7y agoThat is the symlink target, not the ln target, which is exactly why the "target" nomenclature is confusing. Also note that not every "ln" has a "--help" or uses that help message as the output. For example, try on OS X `/bin/ln -h`.
- Rapzid 7y agoYes, it would be platform specific as the OSX ln command would not be the same program as the GNU coreutils ln program. For GNU ln at least I don't find it confusing at all particularly considering the only other option is LINK_NAME. I guess YMMV though and it seems kinda pointless to argue whether it is or is not confusing. Perhaps a poll could quantify it.
- inimino 7y agoIf "target" is used to mean two different things in the same context, it is going to confuse people! This is why naming things is hard!
- Rapzid 7y agoIn GNU coreutils ln help and man page it only ever uses TARGET to refer to the link target?
- inimino 7y agoI wasn't speaking specifically about GNU. Note though that even there you see a --target-directory, -t, -T flags that make literally no sense anymore once GNU reversed the meaning of the term.