On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 10:33:21PM -0700 R. Joseph Newton wrote:
> Francis Henry wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
And yet there is still Perl4 code floating around that didn't yet use
.pm but instead .pl for "p"erl "l"ibrary. On operating systems that
determine the type of a file by looking at the extension (unlike unices
and others) a distinction into .plx, .pl and .pm can be critical. I bet
that this is the ratio behind ActiveState's scheme. And I think they are
right.
Also, there is no standard at all that says that an exectubale Perl
script needs to have the .pl extension. Only the .pm thing is mandatory
with Perl5 because it has been compiled into the interpreter.
Tassilo
--
$_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
$_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
