Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > You're error is in assuming I have time *now*.
> >
> > With 30+ RFCs still to write, I've been seriously contemplating
> > just abandoning the Perl 6 effort, because added to the demands
> > of my full-time job, my O'Reilly and other tutorial commitments,
> > my modules, and my poor long-suffering and cruelly-neglected wife,
> > the stress is beginning to affect seriously my health.
>
> If there are any RFC's which you have in mind and could send me your
> notes on, I'd be *more* than happy to help out.
>
This is actually an excellent idea, because then Damian can concentrate on
coming up with the key ideas. However, rather than having to shuffle notes
back and forth, the approach Damian and I worked on for RFC 23 is more
efficient:
- Damian wrote a quick and dirty RFC outlining the key ideas
- The list responded with all kinds of suggestions, compliments, and flames
- This is where I jumped in, tackling the threads I could myself
- Then I took all these ideas, and redrafted the RFC incorporating the good
ones
- In the redraft I also took any bits hand-waved over and described the
detail
- Damian made quick comments on the redraft that I then fleshed out fully
- Damian polished off the result and posted it
Damian--I think that if you keep the detail down in your first version of
RFCs, we can then see where you're coming from and try to fill in the detail
ourselves. Then hopefully someone will take on the more menial redrafting
effort for you (like I did with RFC 23).
Of course, this only works if people doing the redrafting understand the
area covered by the RFC reasonably completely. The forthcoming RFC on
super-positions may well have to be a Damian-only effort ;-)
As for discussion of internals, I try to post questions about feasibility of
implementation to -internals where I'm not sure (such as in much of the
array processing stuff). I didn't do this for HOFs since their
implementation doesn't seem to raise any obvious impossible obstacles. Maybe
my judgement was wrong on that point--if so we should discuss it further
on -internals.
