Hey Paul:
Actually, when I started learning to program with Perl, I too used the .plx
extension. However, after reading through a few books, which used .pl, I
thought I had misinterpreted the O'Reilly book "Learning Perl"...that is,
when the book said to use .plx, I misinterpreted that to mean .pl plus any
other letter you want (or no letter if you so desire). Hmmm...I guess I
read it right the first time! :)
Dean Theophilou
Genisar
P.S. Thanks for the history lesson. It was a good story.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 5:50 PM
To: Dean Theophilou
Cc: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Re[2]: MS-DOS *AND* Re: I need help running perl for
windows
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:10:38PM -0700, Dean Theophilou wrote:
[ Dean's message was meant to go to the list, but came to me personally. I
am including it in its entirity primarily because threading will be
lost. ]
> Hey Paul:
>
> Very true. However, my experience has been that the .pl extension is the
> norm in the Win32 world. Actually, Dave Roth's book "Win32 Perl
> Programming: TSE", uses the .pl extension in the examples, and that book
has
> been around for about 3-4 years. Furthermore, the test scripts in some of
> the most popular modules also use this extension. I've been dabbling in
> Perl for about 2 years now, and I have never run into a problem due to a
.pl
> extension.
>
>
> Dean Theophilou
> Genisar
>
> P.S. Who/what is "King Canute"?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 3:25 PM
> To: Dean Theophilou
> Cc: Perl_beginner (E-mail); Crystal Gruetzmacher
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: MS-DOS *AND* Re: I need help running perl for
> windows
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 03:04:23PM -0700, Dean Theophilou wrote:
>
> > O assoc .pl=Perl
>
> As a note to those for whom it's not too late, the .pl extension is
> historically associated with Perl Libraries. Although libraries still
> work with modern Perls, their use has been discouraged since Perl5 was
> released and so the extension has found use elsewhere, but I believe the
> recommendation is to use a .plx extension for Perl executable scripts on
> those platforms which require an extension to signify that a file is
> executable.
>
> Using the .pl extension to signify a Perl executable script will make
> Perl libraries appear to be executable whereas in fact they are not. A
> number of these libraries are still shipped as standard with Perl.
>
> Now I feel like King Canute ;-)
Let me start at the end and work backwards.
King Canute was an English King shortly after 1000AD. Or more
accurately he was a King of England. He was generally regarded as a
good King and was known as Canute the Great. In fact, his courtiers
thought he was so great that he could command the tides of the sea to go
back. Canute was also wise. He had his throne taken to a beach and as
the tide advanced he sat upon it commanding the waves to come no
further. With the waves lapping around his throne he made the point
that the power of a King was as nothing compared to the power of God.
I was not suggesting this I was great or wise, but simply that I felt I
had very little chance of turning the tide.
You are correct that a .pl extension is generally given to executable
Perl scripts in the Win32 world. I have also seen it on more advanced
operating systems where a file may be marked as executable irrespective
of its name. However, the .pl extension is for Perl Libraries which are
not supposed to be executed and the sheer number of people who use .pl
for executable scripts doesn't make it correct. It is even possible
that executing a Perl Library may have undesirable effects.
Not that I expect to make much of a dent, especially with the books and
software around as you mention, but those who are new to Perl may wish
to proceed down the recommended path, albeit the one less travelled.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
