Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'd personally like a license chosen before any code gets written in
> earnest, so that might well argue for -license to wrap up before then.
> (Whether this is an issue or not is up in the air--it depends on who's
> submitting code)
I see the point, and I actually agree th
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > It seems to me that the perl6-internals, perl6-qa, and perl6-licenses groups
> > should be able to produce additional RFCs after this. Of course, the
> > Language will be frozen, but these three groups may need to remain fluid
> > after the 1
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 04:06:00PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Personally I'm betting that the volume we've seen on -language will
> > pale into tiny insignificance compared to the volume on -internals
> > once Larry has made his announcement.
>
> I d
At 04:26 PM 10/3/00 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 08:50:24AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > > It seems to me that the perl6-internals, perl6-qa, and perl6-licenses
> groups
> > > should be able to produce additional RFCs after this. Of course
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 08:50:24AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > It seems to me that the perl6-internals, perl6-qa, and perl6-licenses groups
> > should be able to produce additional RFCs after this. Of course, the
> > Language will be frozen, but these three group
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 04:06:00PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Personally I'm betting that the volume we've seen on -language will
> pale into tiny insignificance compared to the volume on -internals
> once Larry has made his announcement.
I doubt it; I think we've a lot of people who want to ta
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have no objection to -internals remaining. I think their discussion
> will probably take off more after Larry's announcement.
Personally I'm betting that the volume we've seen on -language will
pale into tiny insignificance compared to the volume
Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> It seems to me that the perl6-internals, perl6-qa, and perl6-licenses groups
> should be able to produce additional RFCs after this. Of course, the
> Language will be frozen, but these three groups may need to remain fluid
> after the 14 October 2000 annoucement.
I thin
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Adam Turoff writes:
> > From this point forward, no new RFCs will be accepted until the RFC
> > submission process is reopened. Any new RFCs that are submitted
> > during this review phase will be held in limbo until new submissions
> > start up again.
> When were you
Adam Turoff writes:
> From this point forward, no new RFCs will be accepted until the RFC
> submission process is reopened. Any new RFCs that are submitted
> during this review phase will be held in limbo until new submissions
> start up again.
When were you thinking the RFC process would reopen
The time for brainstorming about what Perl6 can/should be is coming
to a close. As Nat posted recently, we are now entering a two week
review period in anticipation of Larry's language design.
>From this point forward, no new RFCs will be accepted until the RFC
submission process is reopened.
11 matches
Mail list logo
