That's how I have Perl 6 (and a number of other packages) set up; a version-agnostic name in a $PATH place, symbolically linking to package directory.
On 12/31/15, Philip Hazelden <philip.hazel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note that if we want scripts to be interpreter-agnostic, the perl6 binary > needs to exist for #! purposes. So renaming it would be bad, but a simlink > would work. > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:27 PM Brock Wilcox <awwa...@thelackthereof.org> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:39 AM, webmind <webm...@puscii.nl> wrote: >> >>> >>> Yes, wouldn't it make sense to couple the rakudo release version to the >>> language it implements? >>> >> >> Naw -- there'll be probably monthly rakudo releases but the Specification >> releases should be much less frequent -- like maybe every few months (at >> first) or yearly is my guess. >> >> This might be less confusing if: >> * We referred more often to rakudo instead of perl6 when we mean the >> implementation (you compile with gcc, not "c"; rakudo confusingly calls >> it's interpreter "perl6") >> * Get more implementations! If we had like 3-4 implementations to choose >> from then it might be more obvious what was going on. >> >> Probably there would be a stronger argument for the "perl6" binary to be >> either renamed to "rakudo" or to be a symlink to whatever your >> current-perl6-implementation is were there an alternative implementation >> ... but there isn't... so ... I guess someone should do that. :) >> >> ... though there actually ARE a few others, but none nearly as complete >> as >> Rakudo, afaik >> >> * https://github.com/sorear/niecza - CLR >> * http://fglock.github.io/Perlito/ - Perlito6 written mostly in Perl6 >> (lots of other interesting Perlito stuff) >> * http://perl6.org/compilers/features - comparison >> * several abandoned ones (e.g. Pugs) >> >> --Brock >> >> >
