bug#20354: [feature request] ln with command line arguments in reverse order

[Bernhard Voelker]

On 04/17/2015 04:52 PM, Erik Auerswald wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:45:02PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> How I think about it is:
>>
>>   cp [OPTION]  EXISTING NEW
>>   mv [OPTION]  EXISTING NEW
>>   ln [OPTIONS] EXISTING NEW
> 
> That's good wording.

IMO there's no gain if the operand names are the same, because
then the users would have to know the tool even better.  Such
distinction makes the users help to remember how the tool works.
So at least for ln(1), the word LINK_NAME is perfect.

FWIW this was Jim's change to improve the wording back in 1998:

http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=519365bb089c

Have a nice day,
Berny