Subject: bug#9896: acknowledged by developer (Re: bug#9896: ln man page ambiguity)

From: Jim Meyering <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:29:58 +0100

Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/20/11 15:10, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> +By default, destinations (locations of new links) should not already exist.\n\
>>
>> "location" might be construed to mean "directory in which it's created".
>> What do you think of this?
>>
>>   By default, each destination (name of new link) should not already exist.\n\
>
> Yes, that's fine.
>
>>> +  -n, --no-dereference        treat LINK_NAME as a normal file if\n\
>>> +                                it is a symbolic link to a directory\n\
>>
>> While I like using terms from Usage, using LINK_NAME here
>> might make readers think that it applies only to the 1st form:
>
> That's the intent.  -n applies only to the first form;
> it does not apply to destinations in general.  -n is
> like -T in that respect.

That's perfect, then ;-)
You can tell I haven't used -n for too long.

Thanks!