On Mon May 21 18:58:45 2007, allison <!-- x --> at perl.org wrote: > Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote: > > > > When hearing 'executables' I primarily think of compiled programs, e.g. > > compiled C-programs. Personally I'd call the *.pl files simple scripts. > > Agreed, *.pl isn't an executable. Script works, or program. > > Allison >
I don't agree but I'm not going to fight it. I'm going with 'program' because I like Andy's idea of getting away from the word 'script'.
Index: docs/tests.pod =================================================================== --- docs/tests.pod (revision 18616) +++ docs/tests.pod (working copy) @@ -141,9 +141,9 @@ At the present time most, if not all, of the programs used to configure, build and install Parrot are written in Perl 5. These programs take the form of -executable files (F<*.pl>) and Perl modules (F<*.pm>) holding subroutines and -other variables imported into the executable files. Examples of such -executable files can be found under F<tools/>; examples of such Perl modules +program files (F<*.pl>) and Perl modules (F<*.pm>) holding subroutines and +other variables imported into the program files. Examples of such +program files can be found under F<tools/>; examples of such Perl modules can be found under F<lib/Parrot/>. All of these Perl 5 components ought to be tested. Fortunately, over the last @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ =item b -Those subroutines are then imported back into the executable file. +Those subroutines are then imported back into the program file. =item c
