At 04:29 PM 12/5/00 -0500, Kirrily Skud Robert wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> > these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> > newsgroups might be a good pl
At 11:12 PM 12/5/00 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of the suggestions that have been advanced so far, four are worthy of
> > more consideration: C, C++, Java and a specially-designed Perl
> > Implementation Language. (PIL)
>
> > Java is portable and giv
Bennett Todd writes:
> Would you accept a restatement of: as long as whatever it is can be
> translated into a common format, we can work with it, and the
> composition of the actual words is far more important than niggling
> over choices in preferred markup style?
Sure, but that begs the questi
Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > Java is portable and gives us OO, but it's slow and ugly.
>
> I am probably the biggest proponent of the "use Java to implement Perl"
> camp.
Java is only somewhat portable.
> One concern that I have about the data structure design thus far (and I
> believe I wrote a
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patches welcome.
Well, this isn't a patch, but if you really meant patches literally and not
figuratively, I can provide one if you let me know. ;)
> Of the suggestions that have been advanced so far, four are worthy of
> more consideration: C, C++, J
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> newsgroups might be a good place to start. Personal experience shows
> that this could be a
Patches welcome.
=head1 Introduction
This is not a design document; it's a meta-design document - that is, it
tells us what things we need to design, the things we need to consider
during the design process of the Perl 6 internals.
It's completely unofficial, it's completely my opinion, it's me
> > will have to do some proofreading (also tedious) no matter what. If
the
>
> Bah. *I* like proofreading. Certainly for typos and English
construction
> if I can forget everything other than the last 2 sentences I read.
Masters have no reason to spellcheck. I mean they'll have to proofread
> B. The "master" / "apprentice" relationship is just that - it depends
>how the people in question relate. As a potential "master" I am all
>too aware that I am not skilled in teaching - usually because I
don't
>know what is obvious vs what is obscure - so anyone "taught" by me
>
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
> >
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> newsgroups might be a good place to start. Personal expe
Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:05:43AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> > > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written
by
> > > apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's
always
>
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 05:10:22PM +, David Grove wrote:
> Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bah. *I* like documenting.
But what do you like documenting based on?
Uncommented code?
Code with comments?
Code with comments plus some level of skeletal documentation from the
pro
At 06:28 PM 12/2/00 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's more than just the parser. You've got the bytecode compiler and
> > possibly the optimizer as well, and they're probably going to be all, or
> > mostly, C. On the other hand they might not have an
Documentation of Perl6 Internals, written by Apprentices and approved by
their Mentors -- that would be *excellent* :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tech documentation (Re: Perl Apprenticeship Program)
.
. other (good) stuff ommitted
.
> needing s
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:05:43AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
>
> > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written by
> > apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's always been
> > a huge criticism of the perldocs. That's not grunt work.
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>David Grove writes:
>> What does it take to be considered of "master" status in a certain area
>
>Basically this: if you're good at doing something and want/need
>someone to help with it, then you should be able to ask for an
>apprentice.
>
>I'd say n
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> One thing that might be really cool is if there was a way to get some
> tech documentation apprentices on-board just to specialize in perldocs.
> For example, people out of school interested in tech documentation but
> needing somethi
Steve Fink wrote:
>
> David Grove wrote:
>
> > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written by
> > apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too.
>
> Except it's a particular duty that nobody really likes to perform.
One thing that might be really cool is if ther
2000-12-05-13:02:56 Nathan Torkington:
> I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to
> choose what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable
> webpages out of it, that person can write on a Commodore 64 for
> all I care.
Would you accept a restatement of: as long as wh
David Grove wrote:
> Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written by
> apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's always been
> a huge criticism of the perldocs. That's not grunt work. That's proper
> allocation of duties to the best suited personnel for
Today around 11:55am, David Grove hammered out this masterpiece:
: Don't miss the point. I'm not proposing to look for masters using
: brainbench, but for viable apprentices that way. Basic Perl skill seems a
: certian criterium for candidacy, as would basic c skill for some areas.
: I've also ra
Don't miss the point. I'm not proposing to look for masters using
brainbench, but for viable apprentices that way. Basic Perl skill seems a
certian criterium for candidacy, as would basic c skill for some areas.
I've also ranked master there, but only in Perl, not perlguts. I've
proposed using the
David Grove writes:
> 3. We seem to be creating a class system. Nate, this is one that I can see
> as a must-be, so I'm not going in _that_ direction. But let's still
> consider ourselves equal, regardless of rank, ok? Otherwise, perl 6 is a
> wash, because it's just as much about community as it
On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> Ok, it sounds like a plan. Where do we start? By creating a registry of
> current tasks and masters, then fighting for apprenticeship?
I don't know. I've gotten a few good responses on the general idea and
process, but little-to-no feedback on the indivi
Simon Cozens writes:
> Yes, we should really postpone the inevitable markup language war until
> we have something to mark up.
You channeled my very thoughts, Simon.
I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to choose
what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable web
David Grove writes:
> What does it take to be considered of "master" status in a certain area
Basically this: if you're good at doing something and want/need
someone to help with it, then you should be able to ask for an
apprentice.
I'd say not to get too hung up on "master" and "apprentice", as
Today around 11:06am, David Grove hammered out this masterpiece:
: Does brainbench still have free tests for Perl? Maybe that's
: something to look into, and maybe since it's a purely volunteer
: effort if they are now charging for their perl tests, they might
: make an exception... I'll look int
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> > In order to serve and assist future "apprentices" or maintainers, the
> > communication between the two should be public (unless private on
> > purpose), or somehow publicly available. Given the undesi
> "BMK" == Bradley M Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BMK> If we do this, please also make
BMK> or something like that, which is a list that simply redistributes
BMK> mail from to its subscribers. In other
BMK> words, only post would go there, but no
BMK> subscriber could post.
Just be c
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about writing the documents in XML and having a 'perl specification'
> DTD?
> ...
> Death to POD!
Can we *please* not re-fight this war? I know you remember the last
couple incarnations of XML VS POD. Just replay them in your mind and
enjoy the sh
On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> In order to serve and assist future "apprentices" or maintainers, the
> communication between the two should be public (unless private on
> purpose), or somehow publicly available. Given the undesirability of
> having ten gazillion mailing lists, and likel
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:08:35PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Be available. Don't give a task, then disappear until its due,
accept
> it,
> > then disappear again. Answer questions. Check the work. Give
feedback.
>
> This is very
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:08:35PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Be available. Don't give a task, then disappear until its due, accept it,
> then disappear again. Answer questions. Check the work. Give feedback.
This is very important IMHO; especially for apprentices that really
need some
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:23:46AM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:20:29AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > > I still think that with the correct
> > > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
> >
> > DocB
Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I still think that with the correct
> > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
>
> DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
Yak! no. DocBook is for specifying published document layout and is
pretty huge - far too weighty for what we want. I'm th
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:23:46AM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> As someone who had the option of writing a book in DocBook or POD
> I can tell you that it simply would not have happened in DocBook.
Horses for courses. My next book is going to be in DocBook, and I
do a bunch of documentation in it e
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:20:29AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > I still think that with the correct
> > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
>
> DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
As someone who ha
[Replies to perl5-porters, because it's more immediate.]
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:00:06AM +0100, H . Merijn Brand wrote:
> Testing, plain.
> i.e. I'm now pretty involved in p5p, and cannot spare time for p6, though
> I'm following most of it. What I could offer is testing the `current state'
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:27:28 -0500, "Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apprentice Tasks
>
> Any task vaguely Perl related can be apprenticed out. Here is a sample
> list:
>
> - Documentation, both internal and external, including, for instance,
> programming guides, DDDs, user docum
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I still think that with the correct
> DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
-- Aldous Huxle
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> Say What?
>
Say XML - ex em ell :-)
> We need a better POD, not a cumbersome machine-to-machine interchange
> format for writing docs.
The main problem with POD is that we have to write the tools to do
anything with it. Witness the endless hacking/cursing/hacking/curs
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:21:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about writing the documents in XML and having a 'perl specification'
> DTD? With a bit of careful thought we will be able to do all sorts of
> interesting stuff - for example if we tag function definitions we can
> start cross-c
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Alan Burlison writes:
> > seem a very optimal way to go about it. How about a design document
> > (format to be decided) and a 'design + commentary' document which is the
> > design document with the condensed email discussion inserted into it as
> > the commentary. T
-- Adam Turoff wrote:
> Are you asking for a Design Document (tm) to be published/updated
> along with an Annotated Design Document (tm)? Sounds like what Tim
> Bray did for the XML Spec at http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm.
Wow - I hadn't seen that - neat. I expect this was generated by wr
44 matches
Mail list logo
