-=| gregor herrmann, Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:43:51PM +0200 |=- > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:44:03 +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > > > > For what it's worth, here's a comment from 'mst' the author of the > > > > module. > > > > "the .pl in re.pl shouldn't be considered to be a suffix, it's simply > > > > part of the name of the script" > > > Right, in this case that might be a valid reason for an exception. > > I somehow don't believe that the dot is also part of the name. The dot > > is there to emphasize on the fact that this is a Perl implementation, > > contrary to what the Policy suggests. > > I think that this is a play on words: Devel::REPL -> REPL -> re.pl.
And why not r.epl or rep.l? :) Because .pl brings quite e meaning and I think this is intentional. > But of course "repl" would also be possible, and I'm still not > convinced that a basically one-line script is that helpful in > /usr/bin (and then there's still the missing manpage). ACK. -- dam JabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
