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!
