[MacPerl] .pl endings (somewhat off topic?)

[Vicki Brown <vlb@cfcl.com>]

At 17:34 -0400 98/09/21, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 17.17 -0400 1998.09.21, Vicki Brown wrote:
> >At 15:14 -0400 98/09/21, Chris Nandor wrote:
> >>
> >> .plx is what I and others are using a lot for perl scripts, since .pl
>is
> >> specifically meant for Perl library.
> >
> >"specifically meant for"?  By whom?  Documented where?  What programs
> >assume this?
>
> Well, specified primarily out of convention, similarly to .ph (Perl header
> file).  But it is going to be specifically stated so in perlfaq, I
>believe.

In the perl man pages (aka pod) I find:

   "The Win95-NT installation, when using the Activeware port of Perl,
   will modify the Registry to associate the .pl extension with the perl
   interpreter."

(Cool; sounds like Internet Config and BBEdit...)

  ... a reference to "foo.pl" as a generic program (not specifically a
library)

  ... a reference to "mycode.pl" as a generic perl program (ditto)...

  ... various references to Perl libraries whose names end in .pl

  A _specific_ reference to .pm:

    "All Perl module files have the extension .pm.  use assumes this so
    that you don't have to spell out "Module.pm" in quotes.  This also
    helps to differentiate new modules from old .pl and .ph files.

  A reference to .pl and .ph files _as seen in the library directory_

    "You may also discover files in the library directory that end in either
    .pl or .ph.  These are old libraries supplied so that old programs that
    use them still run."

And from the Camel (ch. 7)
   "Generally, a library is placed in a separate file, often ending in
'.pl'".


Thus I am convinced that:
  Perl libraries conventionally (and often) end (or ended) with .pl...

However I do not agree that this statement is synonymous with
  Only Perl libraries (did or should) end with .pl.

> A program should not assume it.

Guaranteed.

> Tom and Randal say it is _absolutely wrong_ to name a script with .pl.

T & R are, of course, entitled to their opinion.

> I think that is silly; it is a
> convention, and the only problem with it is that it confuses people.  How
> do I know when I download this file that I am suppose to require() it or
> do() it or run it?  If the person doesn't name the scripts ".pl", then I
> don't have to worry about it.

You read the documentation? ;-)

>
> As to .plx, this is gaining popularity, and was used as the extension for
> docs in the Win32 Perl Resource Kit (from what I was told).

I'm not sure how I feel about adopting a convention spawned by "that other
windowing operating system" ;^)

> No, .pl was always meant to be Perl Library, from the beginning.  Ask any
> longtime p5p'er, and they should tell you that, from what I understand.

p_5_p'er?  .pl was a _p4_ convention.  Or possibly/probably p3 or p2
or...p1?

I'd rather hear it from Larry.  But then, many things in this life were
originally and long ago meant to mean something other than what they mean
now; the world changes; ideas are adopted and discarded, or modified.  Perl
was originally meant for people to use the format statement a lot ;-)

> >Continuing to use .pl as the suffix on my scripts...
>
> It is not wrong, but it is certainly misleading, but you are under no
> obligation to care.  :-)

I actually do care; but I think that's why I use .pl as a suffix. When I
use a suffix... I've always been something of a nonconformist ;-)
---
Vicki Brown, vlb@cfcl.com        |\      _,,,---,,_
Journeyman Sourceror      ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
Scripts & Philtres             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'
http://www.cfcl.com/~vlb      '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)
P.O. Box 1269 San Bruno, CA  94066

***** Want to unsubscribe from this list?
***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch