Please do not weaken the link between REPL and perl6 !
The ability to test perl6 snippets very quickly is something I find very useful. And to get this I type 'perl6'. Easy to remember.
(I have been following perl6 since the very beginning, and installed 'pug'. Since perl6 has been evolving, I always check syntax with REPL first. Without it I would be lost as I still find sequences, arrays, .slip, .flat, '|' etc incredibly difficult to master.)
'rakudo' is not perl6, but an implementation of perl6. Even so, it is called using 'perl6 [options] <program name>'.
To insist, for the sake of purity, that REPL is called by some other name than 'perl6' would require for the sake of purity that 'rakudo' is called using the command 'rakudo' and not 'perl6'. If a computer guru wants to do that on a system that he/she controls, what is stopping them?
However, I would argue it is best, at present and in order to facilitate adoption of perl6, that we keep to the current naming scheme and make it easy for newcomers to perl6.
Finanalyst On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:34 AM, Parrot Raiser wrote:
The REPL's almost an independent project. Can it be made modular, to reduce the coupling between it and the language?