Jenda Krynicky wrote: > > > > "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.
... > > > 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. > > No. The original distinction between *.pl and *.plx was the > interpreter used for CGIs. > The *.pl was interpreted by perl.exe, while *.plx was interpreted by > perlIS.dll (In-process Perl interpreter for MS IIS). > I know the Installer used to map those two extensions this way, I'm > not sure what does it do now though (not using Perl for CGI > currently). Still the same, at least on my Win2K box. I'm not sure exactly why the perlIIS is necessary. perl.exe seems to work fine for CGI work on my machine. > Using .pl for Perl Libraries is considered long deprecated. > > Jenda > P.S.: I use another extension, .gpl. I have this extension mapped to > wperl.exe ... the consoleless interpreter. It's great for the > Graphical PerL programs :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
