“Source files generally use the standard .pm extension, and scripts or executables use .pl.”

[AlexDaniel]

From modules#Basic_Structure:

Source files generally use the standard .pm extension, and scripts or executables use .pl. However, if you wish to highlight that the file is written in Perl 6 you can use the .pm6 extension for modules, and the .p6 extension for scripts. Test files still use the normal .t extension.

This is no longer true. Or so it seems. Here are some stats from the whole ecosystem:

$ files=(**/*.pm6); echo "${#files[@]}"
1907
$ files=(**/*.pm); echo "${#files[@]}"
1248
$ files=(**/*.pl6); echo "${#files[@]}"
143
$ files=(**/*.pl); echo "${#files[@]}"
110
$ files=(**/*.p6); echo "${#files[@]}"
193

[gfldex]

On windows the shebang is ignored and there is no magic file. The only thing that counts when it comes to decide to call perl.exe or perl6.exe is the file ending. If we want to support windows, we have to use .p6. Modules are not a big issue but for sake of consistency we should make a difference too.

[molecules]

In agreement with gfldex, let's recommend "p6" to avoid confusion with the sister language Perl 5.

Edit (after coke's comment below): "pl6" would also work. I like "p6" better because it is the same amount of typing as "pl" yet it is distinctive from it. However, "pl6" is three characters, which would much more likely avoid namespace collisions with other "p" things. But I'll support either one.

[coke]

+1 gfldex's comment to recommend .p6, or this one to recommend .pl6

[jonathanstowe]

As a matter of interest does the windows rakudo installer have the facility to create the association? Or alternatively is there something in the ecosystem that would allow for the creation of the association which could be used by module installers? If not then either the details of how to do this should be documented somewhere, or all of this is somewhat academic.

[coke]

Updated the doc text to also reference .pl6 and windows compatibility, and opened a ticket on the star project to track the installer issue.

[AlexDaniel]

The doc still says “Source files generally use the standard .pm extension, and scripts or
executables use .pl.”, it has to be changed to .pm6 and .p6. Because that's what most use, generally.

[AlexDaniel]

And the hidden message of whole paragraph is that Perl 6 is the next version of Perl 5, and not a completely new language which is what we were trying to push so much lately.

“However, if you wish to highlight that the file is written in Perl 6 you can use the .pm6”, well, then what .pl extension is for? To suggest that it is “perl” and bring even more confusion to the whole perl5/perl6 problem? Please let's fix this…

[Altai-man]

@AlexDaniel, if the paragraph is wrong, why can't we change it to just some nice and clean "The extension of X is Y, etc"? Seems like a LHF.

[AlexDaniel]

@Altai-man yea, it's not too hard for sure.

[coke]

Given the discussion, removing the LHF tag. I think this is more of a "what is the right answer" than "make this simple subst."

[AlexDaniel]

This question seems to be settled now. See https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-12-03#i_15525555

Basically, even though the docs suggest (“Source files generally use the standard .pm extension, and scripts or executables use .pl”) other extensions, .p6 and .pm6 are winning:

<moritz> data from perl6-all-modules: .p6 346 vs .pl 198 vs .pl6 310
<moritz> pm6 2861 vs pm 1488

So at this point it is a simple subst.

[pprince]

+1 vote for recommending ".p6" and ".pm6" in docs, and removing references to ".pl" and ".pm".

It probably makes sense, though, for the Windows installer to associate both ".p6" and ".pl6" to Rakudo, yeah?

[AlexDaniel]

Yeah.

[JJ]

Agree on that too.

[jnthn]

Agree on recommending ".p6" and ".pm6" too.