Francis Henry wrote:

> 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.

Bad idea, IMHO.  We can altready use the .pm extension for modules, an
argot that is already native to Perl.  I look at established Perl folders
and I see .pl scripts backed by .pm modules.

Lacking some truly compelling reason, it strikes me as a bad idea to veer
off on an unfamiliar and non-standard model.  I therefore share your
skepticism.

Joseph


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to