Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?)

[Nathan Torkington]

Steve Fink writes:
> 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".

I'm not wild about that metric, either.  Exporter is pure Perl, but
I'd love to see its functionality moved into the core (or, indeed,
replaced by a general compile-time interface setup with separate
runtime execution semantics) for speed reasons.

> My message was *encouraging* RFCs

And once again we're in violent agreement :-)  Sorry for any confusion,

Nat