Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)

[Bryan C . Warnock]

On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:51, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Honestly, the PDDs are for the stuff that was implemented, not the stuff 
> that was decided. Or, more clearly, PDDs describe the implementation or 
> proposed implementation at the internals level. RFCs are for 
language-level 
> features.

It should sort of do both.  Okay, maybe arbitrary language decisions 
needn't be P?Dd, but there should be some documented consensus, even for a 
language feature, of what is (or will be), if only to give the developers a 
clear target to shoot for.

> 
> We should have PDDs on garbage collection and memory allocation (I know, 
I 
> know--I'm working on it! :). We should not have PDDs on, say, currying.

Well, a well-designed spec on currying language would certainly help with 
development of the internals to handle currying.  It would also provide a 
nice starting point for the currying documentation. 

Lest the architect say, "Build me a house", and then complain that we don't 
match the plans he never gave us.

-- 
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]