> No. Please don't, and save me the trouble of having to reject them. I'd > rather not do that. Exactly my point. There is no recourse that is given to me, or a lot of other people for that matter. And like I said, my time is variable, and the time that I have to devote to design/implementation of perl is limited may or may not follow Larry's schedule. So I'll leave it up to you - what venue/recourse/means do I have for submitting new ideas for review? And please don't say via mailing list because submitting new ideas via mailing list is absolutely pointless. I'd rather write them semi-formally, catalog them, get input on them while they are still hot, and have them archived somewhere. seems the most productive thing for me to do... Ed
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) Simon Cozens
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...... Edward Peschko
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 36... Simon Cozens
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RF... Edward Peschko
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...... David Grove
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 36... Simon Cozens
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...) Adam Turoff
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 362...... Edward Peschko
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 36... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RF... Edward Peschko
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process... Edward Peschko
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RF... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 36... Adam Turoff
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RF... Edward Peschko
- Re: Not revisiting the RFC process (was: RFC 36... Nathan Torkington