Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> Minor detail:
> .file does not actually exist, except in PIRC. 
Well, I guess we can add it...

> I do not have a strong preference for adding it. Pro: it's a bit clearer than .line, as .line indicates, ehm, the "line" :-) Specifying a filename by .line is a bit weird. Con: generating 2 directives instead of 1 each time you want to update the location makes the generated code string a bit longer/more verbose, which might not be desirable. Anyway, I'm open to anything :-) (possibly renaming even to .location (or .loc, but that's another well-known abbreviation)
>   
Oh, argh, so .line now carries the file *and* the line number?.I wanted 
it to just carry the line number (the clue's in the name... ;-)) and 
have .file carry the filename. Then the source you compiled from one 
file has one ".file 'foo.pir'" directive, and then you just have ".line 
42" style things for lines.

Wonder how much of a pain it'd be to change that. Since you only just 
added .line it, we can probably take this opportunity to make it mean 
what we want (just a line number), add .file, then deprecate #line and 
#file and we're done...perhaps for the next release.

Sound sane?

Jonathan