May I suggest the following extension to the 'use ' pragma, viz.
use <module name written in unicode and case sensitive> in <filename as
constrained by local system>
For justification, see below.
<aside>There were some hot replies to what I thought was a fairly
trivial question. A corollary perhaps of an observation in "Parkinsons
Law" - people on committees argue longest over the item with the
smallest cost. :)</aside>
The broken operating system, or rather family of systems (and I
converted away from them about three years ago), still is used by 90% of
users. In practice, it does matter what happens in that environment.
But also consider, whatever operating system is in use, it has to know
how by default to handle a file - interpret it as a script, run it as a
native executable, pipe it to an editor or renderer etc. That
information has to be associated with the file in some way. One
operating system uses name extensions, another looks at the first line
for a #! etc.
Personally, I find it useful to have a visible clue in the name (via an
extension) as to the content of the file. This seems to me more
widespread than just an OS requirement, as otherwise why have *.tar
*.tar.gz *.pdf *.doc *.png etc or even .* for hidden files in unix?
If it doesnt matter - as far as perl6 is concerned - how the module is
named (see Larry Wall's response regarding unicode and
case-sensitivity), then the extensions too are irrelevant, no? So if I
choose to call my perl6 scripts *.p6 it should not matter? Other than
for the sake of tradition or conformity with the tribe's sense of
And that brings me to another question. Should it matter what the name
of the file is? For modules in perl5 as far as I can discern, the name
of the module in the file name has to conform with the package name
inside the script. I have found this default behaviour annoying at times.
By extending the 'use' pragma to include information about which
container it can be found in, filenames become truly irrelevant.
Moreover, the initiation file for a large project might just be a
configuration file containing all the module names, together with "use
Main <main> in ProjectDebugStage.v03"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, some people put .pl on the end of their "scripts" because they are
running on broken operating systems.
So, I imagine, for Perl6, I'll be making the same strong recommendation
that Perl6 scripts, just like Perl5 and Perl4 scripts before them, have
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777
Enthusiastically seconded! Why should we let the language of Mordor
corrupt our discourse?
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ippimail.com