I actually have a good name...
shakedown (as in cruise, matches CPANTS)
The puny.vm.com server is available as always** VMWare promised licenses
so we can run NT, other win32 crap, Solaris x86. Performance should not be
an issue since it is overnight batching.
Personally I would want to
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:20:33PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
> now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.
Ed,
The RFC process that we started this summer is formally and
intentionally closed. Your post, regard
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
>> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
>> languages.
>Examples? I know you're no
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 06:05:25PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Are we still having this discussion? :-)
*sigh* yes.
> I do not think there is hard dividing line between warnings and
> errors. "Unable to establish network connection - saving file to local
> disk" means the program is still ru
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > Examples? I know you're not talking about C or C++. I'm pretty sure
> > you're not talking about Java - exception-handling renders the term "fatal
> > error" almost meaningless.
>
> We
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 07:44:51PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Also, if we go down the 'have a competition to see who can write the best
> > PDD on subject X' path, can we replace the 'TBD' in unnumbered PDDs
> > with a short string chosen by the
At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
>This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
>exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
>language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing try/except
>blocks around every piece of IO or DB handling. Th
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
> >This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
> >exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
> >language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing
try/excep
In lists.projects.perl.meta, you wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:10:53PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>> This is perhaps the 3rd recent "waiting for Larry" comment posted in the
>> last week. I don't mind waiting... good things take time.
>
>We'll hang ourselves tommorrow... unless Larry comes.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
>
> The basic usefulness of warnings is not in question. This is about
> the *perception* of their utility. Warnings are only useful if the
> user heeds them. The question is, will having them on by default make
> the user more or less l
At 10:48 AM 2/22/2001 +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
Sam Tregar wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the program.
>
> Yup. So all (potentially) exceptions are "fatal errors"? Well, that
> definition fits "almost meaningless" pretty well, in my opinion!
Not exactly. Java defines two clases of "t
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as
forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
Something I think Ed mentioned in passing a few days ago has been
running around in my mind and after some contemplation I think its
changed my mind on all this.
My position has been that warnings are ultimately good, but people who
have not internalized this will easily become annoyed with them
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:53:56PM -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wonder if one of those VM's could be used (as is or with
> collaborative modifications) as a target for Perl6?
We've got plenty of targets. What we need now is ammunition.
--
In related wibbling, I can see an opening for
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:41:22PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > 1) The RFC was a free-for-all brainstorming process. Intentionally.
>
> right, and your point is that brainstorming should cease(?)
Yes. Everyone (else) seems to
> No. Please don't, and save me the trouble of having to reject them. I'd
> rather not do that.
Exactly my point. There is no recourse that is given to me, or a lot of other
people for that matter.
And like I said, my time is variable, and the time that I have to devote to
design/implementatio
What bothers me about the idea of reopening the RFC proces is that the
RFCs we have are already overwhelming. I think one reason we haven't
seen anything from Larry yet is that the RFCs cover an enormous area,
but in a disconnected and difficult to summarize and use form.
I don't think there's a
At 02:24 PM 2/22/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > No. Please don't, and save me the trouble of having to reject them. I'd
> > rather not do that.
>
>Exactly my point. There is no recourse that is given to me, or a lot of other
>people for that matter.
Well, there's always the implementation.
On Thursday 22 February 2001 17:12, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> PDDs are for internals pretty much exclusively. If it doesn't involve the
> implementation or design of the low-level guts of perl, it doesn't belong
> in a PDD. Which isn't to say it has to all be C and bit-level things--the
> parser we
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > As I stated in the original post, there is no reason *not* to keep the
> > process open.
>
> In an attempt to keep my previous message concise, I seem to have
> ne
> Well, there's always the implementation. Granted, it's the messy, nasty
> side of things, but it is the area we're presently working in. Knowledge of
> C is *not* required either--just because that's what the current pieces up
> for discussion are written or going to be written in doesn't mea
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
>
> Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
> job done? I ask merely for informati
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:11:03PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > The current RFCs need work.
>
> Be assured that they're getting lots of top-quality work.
>
> > There are new RFCs that could be written. Its totally counter-produc
At 01:41 PM 2/22/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > emphatically not a series of RFCs. We made mistakes with the RFC
> > process and don't want to repeat them.
>
>But you are making a fundamental mistake if PDDs are shoehorned to fi
On Thursday 22 February 2001 16:56, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Here for example was something that was totally missed in the RFCs and
*should*
> be spec'd out (I believe):
Yes, totally missed
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/78.pod
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've begun to study language implementation. I've a long way to go
and certainly will not be much help with the Perl6 effort...
I wonder if you know about:
The Stalin Scheme compiler?
The realtime generational GC in rScheme?
The very fast virtual machines of librep (aka Sawfish) and Gu
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:17:10PM +, David Grove wrote:
> > Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
> > job done?
>
> What was the question?
Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the job
done?
--
Do you associate ST JOHN'S wi
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> As I stated in the original post, there is no reason *not* to keep the
> process open.
In an attempt to keep my previous message concise, I seem to have
neglected a few key points:
1) The RFC was a free-for-all brainstorming
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> The current RFCs need work.
Be assured that they're getting lots of top-quality work.
> There are new RFCs that could be written. Its totally counter-productive to
... ship a specification to a designer, and then keep adding more
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:42:52AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:20:33PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> > As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
> > now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.
>
> Ed,
>
> The RFC process that we
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
job done? I ask merely for information.
--
You are in a maze of little twisting passages,
Here's my attempt to summarize the recent discussions about the PDD and RFC
processes, answer any questions, and throw out some ideas. I have
attempted to attribute the various bits of the discussions. It you have
been omitted, it was not intentional. If I have misrepresented you, please
co
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:31:23PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
>
> Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
> job done? I ask mere
34 matches
Mail list logo
