On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:04:47PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -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.
>
> I agree that there should be a documentation w/g, but I personally
> believe it is premature to set up such a group, since there is no
> perl6 to document.
Is there really going to be so much of a difference between perl5 and
perl6 that we can't start by cleaning up the current documentation in
preparation? If we really intend to junk all of the perl5 documentation
then I agree that it's premature.
My RFC is predicated on the notion that perl5 will look enough like
perl6 that we won't have to rewrite all of the docs, and thus there's
plenty to be done as of now. With all of these people flurrying about in
excitement about the "community rewrite", it seems to me that harnessing
their interest for something other than talking would be good.
-dlc
