On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:24 AM L A Walsh <coreutils@tlinx.org> wrote:
In the case of creating a link to a directory there is
no choice in creating a "working solution".  If you want a link
there, it HAS to be a symlink.  That the user would bother to
use the 'ln' (link) command in the first place is a sufficiently
convincing "argument" that they really DID want a link there.
That they didn't explicitly specify the type should additionally
be taken that they didn't care enough to specify the type -- only
that the link be created.

        I hope that clarifies that I'm not attempting to always
find some "automatic action", but saw that in this case, it
wouldn't be hard to figure out what was wanted and that doing
so wouldn't be hard to undo if it was not.



I wager that some people *aren't* aware that you cannot hardlink a directory, and instead of writing hundreds of NEW bug reports "linking broken" "why can't I link a directory" leaving 'ln' as it has been since the dawn of time is the better option.

You don't think this will happen? I assure you it will. 

Look at the YEARS of new users being introduced, as their distributions finally 'stabilize' newer coreutils, to the new "Quoted Filenames" in 'ls' . So many people have been totally confused, angry, and rather taken aback that such an old utility did something different.

Even when it could be argued(and I said exactly this when I saw the new feature)  "Hey, thats pretty cool, i can cut and paste with a mouse now and it won't require manual editing later" and many people have made this argument; many other people have made the argument of "if its not in an interactive terminal, NOTHING CHANGED" because so many thought that "well crap I can't rely on any scripts to work anymore" 

...

Let us all learn from history, on this same maillist, of when and when not to change the default workings of a 40 year old tool. 
Perhaps, there are better things to do with the time than argue a point that will cause NUMEROUS people grief in the future. 

Mike