At 02:45 PM 11/17/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
> > >However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
> > >pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me to explore many
> > poss
John van V wrote:
>
> My second desire is to build perl6 purely w/ perl tools/servers,
> and then wholly with perl6 as soon as it can stand on its own.
> That way if there are any problems the core team would be the
> first to know about it ;)
--
John Porter
"Perl is my dogfood."
"David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
> But.. but... but... we don't even have a design spec. I mean, we don't
> even know for sure what Perl 6 is going to look like for certain, inside
> or outside.
This is precisely why I proposed the BS level just below Development. In fact I'm
going
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
> >However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
> >pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me to explore many
> possible
> >designs and pick and choose between them. Also,
I agree with Dan's proposals for PDDs. In particular I like the idea of
the WG chairs having decision power -- it should protect us somewhat from
design-by-committee syndrome.
However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me
At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
>However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
>pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me to explore many possible
>designs and pick and choose between them. Also, if we can keep external API
>design separate from interna
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:20:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I want perl 6's internal API to have the same sort of artistic integrity
> that the language has. That's not, unfortunately, possible with everyone
> having equal say. I'd like it to be otherwise, but that's just not possible
> wit
At 12:38 PM 11/15/00 -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:42:58PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > > All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default.
> > > Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rej
At 03:48 PM 11/15/00 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > team, the leader could be removed by majority appeal, but otherwise has
> > authority in that area, and could not override the group. With the groups
> > as a collective, general election of a core team was shot down
>
>We take it in turns to act
David Grove wrote:
>
> the interests of a small group overriding the interests of the whole,
"the interests of the whole" is a mythical beast, especially on the net.
> the creation of another perl-elite caste, etc. Nate, correct me if I have
> it wrong PLEASE...
So you trust some people to te
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, David Grove wrote:
> Nat and I argued parts of this (I think this is included) at some length.
> Actually, I think I drove him crazy getting specifics out of this.
[many thoughtful details omitted]
> All in all, I think Dan's doing a good job making this make sense. I'm
> j
Nat and I argued parts of this (I think this is included) at some length.
Actually, I think I drove him crazy getting specifics out of this.
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the pr
Using the IBM article that Jarkko found as an example, core implementations of
different languages may have more in common with each other
than implemetations of the same language,
I think PPC is actually significant enough so that it should not be painted into a
perl-only corner.
Seeing tha
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:42:58PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default.
> > Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rejected', etc. have Real Meaning (tm),
> > there should
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the principals (i.e. Me, Nat, or
> > Larry, or our replacements) can mark a PDD as developing, standard, or
> > superceded.
>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the principals (i.e. Me, Nat, or
> Larry, or our replacements) can mark a PDD as developing, standard, or
> superceded.
This doesn't sound right.
All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Sta
;
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:59 PM
>Subject: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation
>
>
> > Here are some guidelines for the design process for internals-level docs.
>
>(good stuff ommitted)
>
> > 7) These are *not* brainstorming documents! Thes
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nathan Torkington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:59 PM
Subject: Guidelines for
Here are some guidelines for the design process for internals-level docs.
1) The damn things will be called PDD, or Perl Design Documents. Calling
them RFCs was getting confusing for those of us dealing with IETF RFCs,
especially as we're edging in towards the active RFC range.
2) We start cou
19 matches
Mail list logo
