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]