Post #2806638
2026-05-02 23:41 UTC
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @mjw@mastodon.nl There was a relatively long bug report discussing different ways to make this less confusing a few years ago: https://bugs.gnu.org/52115
I think I agree with Bernhard for the most part. Especially that the synopsis of 'ln' is a bit of a mess that we should avoid complicating further.
Replies (2)
-
@collinfunk@mastodon.social 2026-05-02 23:47
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @mjw@mastodon.nl Ah, I read these posts too fast and didn't see the suggested change was for 'ls' instead of 'ln'. Well there is some related reading anyways if you are interested...
-
@wouter@pleroma.debian.social 2026-05-03 06:12
@collinfunk@mastodon.social That bug fails to notice that it is using confusing language in the documentation. ln TARGET LINK_NAME the target can reasonably be assumed to be the file that is created. But in the case of ln, it's the target *of* the file that is created. I think that is where my confusion stems from, and I think this language should be updated. I can't quite think of a good replacement for TARGET, though. @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @mjw@mastodon.nl