Re: Re: RFC : Pragma vs. Module

Look at lib.pm. It's a "pragma", but all it's doing is manipulating @INC in a pretty straight-forward way, and it's pure-perl, too.

Anyway, I just mean that what is meant by "pragma" is open for a certain degree of interpretation.

------------
:Wq
Not an editor command: Wq
[download]

Comment on Re: Re: RFC : Pragma vs. Module Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: RFC : Pragma vs. Module by liz (Monsignor) on Mar 14, 2004 at 22:43 UTC
...I just mean that what is meant by "pragma" is open for a certain degree of interpretation. I agree: forks ifdef load Mind you, none of these modules are registered, so I'm really avoiding the issue... Liz	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RFC : Pragma vs. Module by perrin (Chancellor) on Mar 15, 2004 at 05:38 UTC
Well, in my opinion, these should not be named as if they were pragmas, since pragmas are included in the core and documented in the perl man pages. Not a slight on the functionality of these useful modules; just a disagreement about naming etiquette.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: RFC : Pragma vs. Module by perrin (Chancellor) on Mar 15, 2004 at 05:33 UTC
I don't understand your point. The 'lib' pragma is part of the core library and is listed in perltoc. That's exactly what I was saying needs to happen to create a pragma. I didn't say anything about implementation language.	[reply]