Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> Steve Fink writes:
> > We are NOT here to construct a radically better language. We are here to
> > design the underpinnings of one.
>
> Perhaps. And by "perhaps", I mean "no".
>
> We're here to say what we'd like to see in the next version of Perl.
> These can be big things (currying) or small (hashes returned by
> functions instead of long lists). We're giving input to Larry, who
> will then design the language. We are just telling Larry what we
> would like, and why (i.e., which itch it would scratch).
And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an
unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything
that can't be done with a pure perl module".
> > If you have an idea that will "add value" to Perl6 but can just as
> > well be done after the groundwork for the language has been laid
> > out, then please do not write up an RFC on it. It'll just distract.
>
> I completely disagree. If you want something in Perl, now's the time
> to ask. We're going to have to nail down the language so people can
> begin writing grammars, data structures, regex engines, and so on.
> There's no such thing as a small change if that change comes *after*
> people have begun coding. That's called "feature creep", as I'm sure
> you know.
Which is why I wrote the rest of that paragraph, saying that people
should write RFCs for anything that requires, or might require, changes
in the Perl6 language. My message was *encouraging* RFCs; I was
disagreeing with a message discouraging them. You happened to quote the
two sentences where I was agreeing that not all RFCs need to be brought
up just now, if the change they propose would still be possible after
the Perl6 core was set in stone (namely, you could just write a module
to do that using "existing" primitives at no significant loss in
performance or clarity. Which usually implies that you could do it today
in Perl5, but nobody's bothered to.)
> So I want to encourage people to submit RFCs. Yes, there are a lot of
> them. That's Larry's problem, not ours. It's one problem he's glad
> to have, I'm sure.
I agree. At least, to the extent possible without having Larry's brain
sitting in front of me in a jar, and I'm pretty sure this one is
somebody else's.
