Nathan Torkington said
> Steve Simmons writes:
> > This idea is both important and more general. If we go thru a huge
> > discussion of, say, multi-line comments and decide *not* to do it,
> > we don't want to have the whole thing repeated with perl 6.1, 7.0,
> > etc, etc. When something reaches RFC stage but is rejected, part of
> > the process should include archiving the gist of the arguements for
> > and against. IMHO the RFC editor should be responsible for this.
>
> IMHO someone should write an RFC on why perl6 should NOT have
> comments. The RFC editor doesn't have time to follow these zillions
> of discussions and write documents based on them.
Not sure what you mean here. The Multiline Comments RFC was written by me.
By writing it I agreed (by my actions) I would follow-through and actually
read the responses to it. I don't think its unreasonable to expect that I
should summarize the general response and include it in the final RFC
submission.
