The bash manpage says:

Redirecting Standard Output and Standard Error
Bash allows both the standard output (file descriptor 1) and the standard error output (file descriptor 2) to be redirected to the file whose name is the expansion of word with this construct.

There are two formats for redirecting standard output and standard error:

&>word

and

>&word

Of the two forms, the first is preferred. This is semantically equivalent to

>word 2>&1

Why does the bash author say that &> is preferred over >&? I tend to use the >& form because it is evocative of the concatenation 2>&1.

The bash manpage says:

Redirecting Standard Output and Standard Error
Bash allows both the standard output (file descriptor 1) and the standard error output (file descriptor 2) to be redirected to the file whose name is the expansion of word with this construct.

There are two formats for redirecting standard output and standard error:

&>word

and

>&word

Of the two forms, the first is preferred. This is semantically equivalent to

>word 2>&1

Why is the first form preferred?

The bash manpage say:

   Redirecting Standard Output and Standard Error
       Bash allows both the standard output (file descriptor 1) and the 
       standard error output (file descriptor 2) to be redirected to the
       file whose name is the expansion of word with this construct.

       There are two formats for redirecting standard output and standard error:

              &>word
       and
              >&word

       Of the two forms, the first is preferred.  This is semantically equivalent to

              >word 2>&1

Why the bash author says that particular combination of operators &> is closer to >word 2>&1 than >&? I tend to use the second form because I find it very invocative of the concatenation 2>&1.

The bash manpage says:

Redirecting Standard Output and Standard Error
Bash allows both the standard output (file descriptor 1) and the standard error output (file descriptor 2) to be redirected to the file whose name is the expansion of word with this construct.

There are two formats for redirecting standard output and standard error:

&>word

and

>&word

Of the two forms, the first is preferred. This is semantically equivalent to

>word 2>&1

Why does the bash author say that &> is preferred over >&? I tend to use the >& form because it is evocative of the concatenation 2>&1.