[Catalyst] Remove .pl from scripts?

[Christopher H. Laco]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jules Bean wrote:
> Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> 
>> #1. Many editors base their syntax highlighting and editing rules on
>> file extensions on the file extension. Whether you should or shouldn't
>> get editing those files is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Fix your editor. Or use a better one. This is the 21st century you know.

How about some more fact rather than a quip?
I believe SciTE is a rather well known non broken editor in that
reqpest. I would wager that the majority of all editors check the file
extension as the very first check in mapping files to languages and
language parsers.

I would also argue that having an editor guess what my file is by it's
contents is more prone to error than the file extension.


> 
>> #2. Windows hates to run files without file extensions, They may or may
>> not be an issue. Windows cones with catalyst.bat, which runs when you
>> type C:> catalyst MyApp.  IF the perl script were named the same thing,
>> that may not work. Windows people would be forced to always doing perl
>> catalyst.pl.
> 
> 
> No comment. I have no idea. If this is really a problem then that could
> be a valid reason.
> 
> 
>> #3. Unless there is some intention of these scripts changing to say
>> bash, oy pything, or something else that could be specified in the
>> shebang, there's not reason to make it an ambigous file name.
> 
> 
> I find nothing 'ambiguous' about the name without the .pl.

How is that?

Here's a file:  /usr/local/myfile

What is it? Yup, you can't tell without opening it first, or TRYING to
run it. If it has no shebang of execute bit, you're screwed. Now you
have to open it to figure out how to run it.

- -=Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDf13g+66dLHM50ssRArv5AKCifm+cBs25F6j43ZTJS3ZZfjlkggCfZWen
NI7Clf0gog6+HaxmOHkGgWg=
=90qX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----