pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-09-02 21:48:23 +0200 (Wed, 02 Sep 2009)
New Revision: 28172
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S01-overview.pod
Log:
[S01] also allow a .p6 to be indicative of Perl 6 code
<snip>
@@ -111,6 +111,9 @@
use v6.0;
v6;
+Also, a file with a C<.p6> extension may be taken as indicative,
+though C<.pl> is perfectly acceptable with one of the other indicators.
On the face of it, I think this is a bad idea, at least exactly as stated.
Fundamentally, I believe that the canonical Perl 6 filename extensions should be
exactly the same as those for Perl 5, meaning .pl, .pm, .pod, .t, etc, or no
language-specific filename extension at all.
That is, *unless*, the new filename is meant to replace *both* .pl and .pm, and
the other language-specific extensions.
So if we're talking about a single unified canonical filename extension for Perl
6, for both main programs and modules etc, then I welcome it. And this then is
also sort of a reversion to the Perl 4 norm of using .pl for everything.
I do *not* think it is a good idea to allow .p6 as an alternative for .pl
specifically, but still also keep just .pm unchanged. This would be rather an
imbalance where some kind of Perl files (main programs) can have a special new
extension indicating Perl 6 while Perl modules lack the ability to distinguish
that way.
However, I believe that it is still a good idea to change the details if we want
to have a 6 in the filename.
If we keep separate canonical extensions for main programs and for modules, we
should simply keep the full existing extension and add a 6 to it.
For example, have .pl6, .pm6, .pod6, .t6, etc if we want to have multiple
canonical extensions.
Or to both change and unify, I propose that .pl6 is better than .p6, because
that more clearly states that we're talking about Perl 6 and not say Python 6 or
Pascal 6 or PHP 6 or whatever, all of which already have filename extensions
starting with "p" and that differ by other letters or lack thereof.
-- Darren Duncan
