Paul Johnson:
# Call me an old fuddy duddy if you will, or Unix-centric if
# you must, but
# the .pl extension historically refers to Perl Libraries, and even now
# that is my first thought when I see it.
#
# Now I realise that many people working on this project have rarely, if
# ever, used Perl 4 or earlier versions, and I also realise that many
# people now use the .pl extension to refer to executable Perl scripts,
# but I still wonder whether we shouldn't change the .pl extension.
#
# If an extension is required, the recommended extension is .plx, but I
# question whether an extension is necessary at all.
#
# I don't really want to start a discussion about file associations, or
# the adequacy or otherwise of any operating system, I am merely
# suggesting that the .pl extension be removed or replaced.
#
# A counter argument might be that Perl 6 is seven or more years
# subsequent to Perl 4 and it's about time we reused that extension.
# Maybe that's one for the language bods.
#
# Other random points:
#
# - the .pl files are Perl 5
# - but some time they could be Perl 6
# - the .plx extension isn't prominent in the Perl 5 documentation
# - a patch is probably not useful ;-)
#
# Anyway, just a suggestion before we get too many .pl files.
The .pl extensions are meant to indicate that these are Perl scripts,
not shell scripts (or C programs). Considering that Configure in Perl 5
is a shell script, it would make sense for people to assume Configure
without an extension in Parrot is one too. The .pl makes people realize
it's a Perl script; if we used .plx, some people might not understand
what that was. (I can't really speak for the other scripts; Configure
is my specialty.) Besides, ActivePerl on Win32 sets up file
associations on .pl, not .plx. :^)
--Brent Dax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
They *will* pay for what they've done.
