Don't sweat it, "f" is fine. Pragma'ness can be indicated in other ways.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing a "p" for pragma interface style.
Tim.
On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Name DSLI Description Info
> ------------- ---- -------------------------------------------- --------
> Sex Rdpf Heterogeneous recombination of Perl packages MSCHWERN
> uny2k Rdpf Removes y2k fixes MSCHWERN
> loose Rdpf Perl pragma to allow unsafe constructs MSCHWERN
>
>
> Okay, so these are silly but I figured I'd mention them.
>
> One serious point. Sex and loose don't really fit into any of the
> "Interface Styles" offered in 00modlist.long. Sex consists of just an
> import() routine. loose doesn't even have that much, it exports one
> trick function and sets a __WARN__ handler. uny2k exports two trick
> functions and acts through the overloaded values they return (the more
> serious y2k.pm does the same thing.)
>
> I can see arguments that uny2k and loose are functional interfaces,
> but it would be a stretch to say that's the interface Sex offers (yes,
> import() is a function...)
>
> There's a decent amount of modules which act like this (base.pm,
> fields.pm, strict, warnings, etc...) Most are pragmas, they alter the
> module which uses them (usually, but not always, through an import
> routine.) Is this a seperate interface style? i for import? p for
> pragma?
>
>
> --
>
> Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cherry blossoms fall
> I hurry to my final
> boiling paste enema.
> -- mjd
