Thanks you guys for the discussion. re.pl may be a one liner, but that's all it takes to load the repl. That's that power of perl in action. It is definitely not a trivial script in the sense that creates a real REPL environment. Consider it like the one liner oowriter.
I used to think the name was silly too until I realized the play on words, and realized that it was actually clever. I don't think changing the name is a good idea because someone is going to look for it by its documented name, not some other name we give it to conform to an inflexible policy. One way to think of re.pl is a bit like catalyst.pl which does get into /usr/bin If providing some more documentation to the module would make the sell, then I can volunteer to do that. It would probably just be writing an article about what a REPL is something like what one would find at wikipedia, course I don't have control over how long it would take the docs to get into the module. - Mateu > 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. > 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). > > Cheers, > gregor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
