On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:57:19PM +0100, Klaus Klein wrote:
> "Jason R. Fink" <jrf@adresearch.com> writes:
> 
> > Index: ln.1
> > [...]
> 
> Please add the usual blurb to STANDARDS.
> 
> > @@ -96,6 +101,7 @@
> >  	argc -= optind;
> >  
> >  	linkf = sflag ? symlink : link;
> > +	linkch = sflag ? '-' : '=';
> >  
> >  	switch(argc) {
> >  	case 0:
> 
> Since it's the same condition this should rather be an if-then-else
> construct.

Okay, that is how FreeBSD was setup, I can change it if you like.

> > @@ -162,6 +168,8 @@
> >  		warn("%s", source);
> >  		return (1);
> >  	}
> > +	if (vflag)
> > +		(void)printf("%s %c> %s\n", source, linkch, target);
> >  
> >  	return (0);
> >  }
> 
> Now you've made me curious. :-) I thought the whole point was to
> resemble the behaviour of GNU fileutils as closely as possible (or
> desirable?); fileutils ln prints "create {hard,symbolic} link '%s' to
> '%s'".  Is there prior art using the format you've chosen?

No, I wanted to use FreeBSD. That is the same reason I kept the
above, also, cp uses ->. So I wanted to have consistency.

The standards blurb is in there, as soon as my new checkout is
done I will generate another diff and send a copy of FreeBSD's
ln. Now, this does not mean I couldn't go back and change
cp and ln to say "to", but I would prefer consistancy within
the BSDs and not with GNU.

Thanks again!

	j

-- 
Jay Fink http://pyxis.homeunix.net/
NetBSD Developer http://www.netbsd.org/
Senior SysAdmin/Programmer, Ipsos http://www.ipsos.com/