[techtalk] Minor ln -s question

[Jen Hamilton]

That's exactly how I figured it out. It used to always confuse me until I
realized that (as long as the new directory is named the same as the old),
you can just do # ln -s filename. Cool. 

Jen

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mary Gardiner wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 07:58:28AM +1000, jenn at simegen.com wrote:
> > And if you're like me and constantly forget which order it's 
> > in, 'ln --help' or 'man ln'.
> > 
> > Your mind it too important to clutter with memorising things that
> > can be looked up that easily. :)
> 
> I finally memorised it by figuring it out this way:
> 
> There is one argument ln *needs* - the file being linked to. The name you
> give it is actually an optional argument (it will just give it the same
> name by default). Hence the new name has to be the second argument, otherwise
> it would be a bastard to parse the arguments. :)
> 
> Not that the looking up argument isn't a good approach, but at one stage I was
> using it like it was going out of fashion, and that particular space in my brain
> is taken up by memorising tar's order of arguments (this can be figured out
> too actually).
> 
> Mary.
> 
> -- 
> Mary Gardiner
> <mary at puzzling.org>
> GPG Key ID: 77625870
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techtalk mailing list
> techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>