On 07/14/2018 07:51 PM, L A Walsh wrote: > Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 07/12/2018 02:16 AM, L A Walsh wrote: >>> I'm asking why does 'ln' bother to tell the user that they are >>> wrong and do nothing useful? Why not just go ahead and create a symlink >> >> The user didn't ask for a symlink, > User didn't ask for a physical or hardlink (-P) either. Just asked > for a link, kind unspecified. > >> and it sounds unwise for ln to be >> second-guessing that. > --- > True - should **probably** have given them *SOME* link. Since > they didn't specify Physical or Symlink...either would be fine. > > >> Sometimes, reporting an error and exiting is a >> better thing to do. > --- > Unless they claim to want one or the other (-P or -l), unless > it is an "undo-able" operation (like one that deletes data), why would > you guarantee ln doing the wrong thing, rather than having a better than > 50% chance of doing the right thing?
I disagree here: some people are not that familiar with the differences between symlinks and hardlinks, okay, but the consequences for using either type may be quite dramatic later on. Therefore I think it's better to give a helping error instead of second-guessing what the user *may* have wanted. The point is: also an experienced user may sometimes forget to specify the -s option, and I'm sure they *want* a proper error message. Have a nice day, Berny
