At 07:56 PM 9/28/00 -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
>
>My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be
>much of an interest. I was trying to decide today whether I should
>freeze or withdraw.
It probably either got lost in the shuffle of RFCs, or the folks who'd deal
with it have been too busy to notice. The mass of language morphing RFCs
have really started to get to people. (Okay, they started a while ago...)
I'm not sure the method you propose in the RFC's a good way to go--it would
probably be better to start from scratch and use the experience we've
gained with the current doc set to redesign the documentation. It really
desperately needs reordering and its divisions changed.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
