Buddha Buck wrote:
> I'm willing to put this proposed compromise in RFC169v2 -- I like it,
> too -- but I'm not willing to put $a[$i][$j][$k] as equivilant to
> $a[[$i,$j,$k]] or $a[$i;$j;$k] into any RFC with me as the maintainer.
> I welcome Jeremy writing an RFC that does that, though.
>
This weekend I plan to write separate RFCs for each of the areas we've been
talking about. I'd suggest then withdrawing RFC 169 and creating new RFCs
from it for each specific section we can't reach consensus on. Trying to get
all of this n-dim array discussion into one RFC will result in it getting
rather bloated, and will make it harder to point to the specific consensus
and conflicting RFCs when we're all finished.
