What I think this note means to say it is to save the libraries ( small subroutines saved as .pl in a different file, you might write for your program to make it look cleaner and by just doing require that .pl file you may use the subroutine.) All he's expecting to do is differentiate between the executable codes (the ones with #!/usr/bin/perl as the first line) by naming them with extension .plx and having the files that just contain some subroutines, written in a different file ( which can be called a library, if chosen too, because might be used by other programs too) and having them with extension .pl
Aman Raheja ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis Henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: perl extensions > Hi: > > The following is a note from a colleague of which I am skeptical: > > "fyi.... > .pl used to be used for both executables and libraries. > A library is simply perl code located in a different file which is > imported into another perl program with the 'require' keyword. > > Now that we have the .plx convention (and of course the extension > doesn't > affect perl's behavior at all) we can have .pl stand only for > libraries > and .plx stand for executables." > > Are any of the rest of you conforming to this? I'm not sure if he's > referring to modules (ext. .pm) when he says "libraries", either. > > > > -- > NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender > does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
