Would you agree that it makes more sense though? I tend to agree with you, I _want_ to write 'mv src, dst', but the other way around has some strong supporting

Would you agree that it makes more sense though? I tend to agree with you, I _want_ to write 'mv src, dst', but the other way around has some strong supporting reasons: - it's closer to the usual pseudo assembly "eax <- ebx" - it's closer to the mathematical "A = B" - on a more practical side, it's what was adopter by C standard library "memcpy(dst, src)" Thinking about it, there are more reasons to favor 'mov dst, src'. I think the culprit (at least for me) is that I cannot "pronounce" it correctly in my head. I have to use some peripheral sentence such as "move in dst the contents of src" instead of the more natural (but backward from the reading perspective) "move src to dst"