Introduction, I suppose.

No traffic yet, so I suppose I'll open with a couple statements and a couple questions. First of all, do we talk, or submit PDDs? Are we aiming for a single PDD from this group, or a short number of them, or a short number to be collated into one? I'm not quite clear how this works, and what we e

Re: Introduction, I suppose.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:29:24AM +, David Grove wrote: > If this should be a PDD, I'll be happy to propose it that way, but I will > need some slight help in the specific implementation of the C code that > does it. I may have misunderstood the purpose of this group, but it's *API*, which m

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Re: Fwd: ezmlm response

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, David Grove wrote: > Out of curiosity, is majordomo deprecated? yes. - ask -- ask bjoern hansen - more than 70M impressions per day,

Re: The new api groups

On 14 Nov 2000, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > Did I miss something? I didn't see any discussion. Was this off-line? No, on perl6-announce and perl6-internals. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: The new api groups

I'm on announce, I believe... I didn't get anything. (Internals seems like a poor place to make than announcement.) How do I check to see that ezmlm hasn't unsubscribed me from announce when my server was down last week for a couple of days? It's read-only, so I can't test-post to it, and I'm not

Re: Introduction, I suppose.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:55:27AM +, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:29:24AM +, David Grove wrote: > > If this should be a PDD, I'll be happy to propose it that way, but I will > > need some slight help in the specific implementation of the C code that > > does it. > > I

Re: Introduction, I suppose.

Oops. ;-)) And I thought I was on a roll, contributing to the Perl 6 source core thingy... LOL Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:55:27AM +, Simon Cozens wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:29:24AM +, David Grove wrote: > > > If this should

Re: The new api groups

> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DS> At 03:34 AM 11/15/00 +, David Grove wrote: >> I'm on announce, I believe... I didn't get anything. (Internals seems like >> a poor place to make than announcement.) How do I check to see that ezmlm >> hasn't unsubscribed me from annou

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

At 07:35 AM 11/15/00 +, Mike Lacey wrote: >- 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

Re: The new api groups

At 03:34 AM 11/15/00 +, David Grove wrote: >I'm on announce, I believe... I didn't get anything. (Internals seems like >a poor place to make than announcement.) How do I check to see that ezmlm >hasn't unsubscribed me from announce when my server was down last week for >a couple of days? It's

RFC: exposing the dynamic->static polymorphic optimizations to the programmer

with "wantarray" and "ref" we have polymorphism but it has to be very late. During official RFC time I (and others) suggested ways to do polymorphic optimizations early, like in C/C++. A few days ago I came up with a way to defer the optimization but make it if it is needed, entirely under pro

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Fwd: ezmlm response

Interesting. I didn't get the announcement from there. Out of curiosity, is majordomo deprecated? --- I've been unable to carrry out your request: The address [EMAIL PROTECTED] was already on the perl6-announce mailing list when I received your request, and remains a subscriber.

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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

Another XS type of thing: Orchard/C

--- start of forwarded message --- From: Ken MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Orchard/C 0.2.3 preview release available Date: 15 Nov 2000 09:38:56 -0600 Half of the Perl interface into Orchard/C is complete, you can now call C functions and return C objects to Pe

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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. >

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

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