On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:36, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Ok, fair enough. I think that perl should have a two-tiered process
though, and
> it should be ongoing and two tiered.
I may be slow, but I make mistakes.
Yes, I've changed my mind. I now think this is a good idea.
>
> Bryan Warnock mentioned PDD as being 'comprehensive', but I think that is
a
> mistake. There should be a more formal process for distilling
conversations,
> lest we repeat length(@array), '??', etc, ad-nauseum. PDD should be stuff
> that was decided as 'golden' and then implemented.
Except that's not quite what I meant by comprehensive.
When it comes to what you are doing and why, it should certainly cover
every base. When it comes to the "why nots", there should at least be
sufficient coverage to answer the question.
As I replied earlier (to a later thread), PDDs weren't meant to be
discussion starters - they were meant to be discussion enders. We've
talked about it, and here's what we've decided to do. There will be much
discussion before that. That discussion is exactly the first tier of the
two-tier system that you're talking about. I wasn't going to be so formal
as to require an RFC, but then again, there's no reason to prohibit them,
either. An RFC is a good way to present an argument, vice the incoherent
babble that people like me put out, as well as a good transition to a PDD
Proposal.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
