Re: feature request: better intuitive syntax LINK=TARGET

[Bernhard Voelker]

On 2020-06-25 17:46, Kaz Kylheku (Coreutils) wrote:
> mv existing new
> cp existing new
> ln existing new
> ln -s rel-or-abs-path new
> 
> The confusing thing in the ln -s case is that if the path is relative, 
> it is
> resolved with respect to the directory of new, not the current directory
> where the command is executing.

I believe the confusion stems from the terms SOURCE and DESTINATION
which I think has been used in some implementations.
For mv(1) and cp(1) this makes sense, but for ln(1) this wording
messes up the whole thing: of course the 2nd argument is the DESTINATION,
i.e., the place for the newly created link. but when thinking about
links (esp. symlinks), ... well.

If the file-to-link-to is in another directory, and the symlink name should
be identical to the symlink target, then I often use the form without a second
argument:

  ln [OPTION]... TARGET

e.g.

  $ ln -sv ../somefile
  './somefile' -> '../somefile'

Otherwise, I mostly use the options to ensure that an already existing file 
(e.g.
old symlink) gets removed (-f). Also the -n option avoids surprises for me, as 
this
also ensures that a symlink to a directory gets replaced (in combination with 
-f):

  $ ln -nsvf ../some-file-or-dir  link-to-file-or-dir

Have a nice day,
Berny