a copy points to the original (for an instant anyway) the same way that a link points to the original:
cp original copy
ln -s original linkI always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
11–20 of 127 posts
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#12Does anyone know why C calls like 'strcpy' and 'strcat' are the opposite of this? strcat(target, source) strcpy(target, source) But, in SH... cp source target I feel like these things were developed around the same time, by the same community. I've always wondered if there was a reason for the different perspective.
I suspect strcat and strcpy were parameterized as such to match memcpy.
Why memcpy was parameterized in that order, I am not certain.
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#13That's funny, I do too. I always thought it was just me...
It is never just you. An important lesson I learned while programming.
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#14Does anyone know why C calls like 'strcpy' and 'strcat' are the opposite of this? strcat(target, source) strcpy(target, source) But, in SH... cp source target I feel like these things were developed around the same time, by the same community. I've always wondered if there was a reason for the different perspective.
Probably in order to be consistent with assignment.
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#15My god, this thing always keeps biting me. It seems so obvious now with that cp-mnemonic. But it makes me wonder, why does everyone do it wrong in the first place?
At least for me, it's because I say in my head "link $FOO to $BAR", which must be typed "ln -s $BAR $FOO".
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#16I've always used complex numbers as a mnemonic: real + imaginary, a + bi (obviously the file is real and the softlink is "imaginary").
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#17Its like a black hole in my mind. Every single time I screw this up. I've.... just had to learn to live with deleting my first crappy link. :)
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#18My mneumonic is that in "ln" the "n" comes second, and n is for "name" so the name of the symlink comes second. But I still have to think about it every time...
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#19Does anyone know why C calls like 'strcpy' and 'strcat' are the opposite of this? strcat(target, source) strcpy(target, source) But, in SH... cp source target I feel like these things were developed around the same time, by the same community. I've always wondered if there was a reason for the different perspective.
Possibly for consistency with functions that take varargs, e.g. sprintf
Re: I always forget the argument order of the `ln -s` command
#20I've always used complex numbers as a mnemonic: real + imaginary, a + bi (obviously the file is real and the softlink is "imaginary"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number
The real/imaginary concept is exactly what I use too. I sort of recall being able to use the real/imaginary concept with other Unix commands as well, but I can't recall which ones off the top of my head.