On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 07:34:10PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> >
> > The IMPLEMENTATION section of the RFC is supposed to be mandatory, but
> > there have been an awful lot of RFCs posted that have missing or
> > evasive IMPLEMENTATION sections.
>
> Well, I have to c
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:29:33PM -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> > Any requirements on how solid an implementation section should be
> > should be left to the working group chairs.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this. What is the WGC's role here?
My english native language is? :-)
I me
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:04:03PM -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> Suppose a WGC establishes a requirement for the solidity of the
> implementation section, and receives an RFC that does not meet the
> requirements. What then?
>
If the WGC chair sets forth explicit requirements as to what
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:02:36AM -0400, David Corbin wrote:
> > Comments, criticisms, etc. welcome.
> >
>
> Can you put a legend explaining the color code on the pages where the
> colors are used?
Look again.
Next request? ;-)
Z.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 07:08:38PM +1100, iain truskett wrote:
> * Adam Turoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [31 Aug 2000 17:41]:
> > A handful of long overdue updates to http://dev.perl.org/rfc have been made:
> [...]
> > - More detailed summaries of all RFCs are available, organi
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:35:31AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> My patch had other changes, too, that we cam to a consensus on. Any chance
> they'll be added, or is Ziggy just plain too busy? ;-)
Ziggy is busy, and he's working on having the by-number.html, by-group.html
and by-author.html p
A handful of long overdue updates to http://dev.perl.org/rfc have been made:
- All RFCs are now maintained in both POD and HTML.
HTML conversion is courtesy of pod2html.
- More detailed summaries of all RFCs are available, organized by
RFC number and working group. See http://dev.
http://dev.perl.org/summary/
Each established list/working group has a spot on this page.
Weekly/Bi-weekly summaries will be posted as they arrive.
Currently, only the two summaries from last week (Aug 31) are
online. Earlier summaries will be posted as I find them in the archives
(
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 12:14:17AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > The decisions should be based on technical merit and general availability.
>
> I would include "available under a free software license" as part of the
> definition of "general availability".
Bradley, yo
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:31:37PM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-09-07-17:11:50 Dan Sugalski:
> That's certainly possible, but since the reason we're gathered here
> together working on trying to launch perl6 is a collective belief
> that perl5 has become unmaintainable for further development
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I don't believe in magic. I'm an engineer by profession, not an
> astrologer. However, I will predict endless arguments when some of the
> less than coherent proposals are rejected.
The RFC process was intended to bring out both
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:49:52PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:34:55PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> >
> > Presumably the discarding will be heralded with an announcement on the
> > mailing list, as well as a note to the maintainer. The interested
> > pa
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:41:01AM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> Some progress. Below is the cvs log from perl.c for the first 800 and some
> changes. There's a few bugs to work out yet (including the one in VCP::Dest::cvs
> that crapped out at change 871, but you get the idea. It's also not
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 09:59:09PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> Adam Turoff wrote:
> > > Feedback welcome.
> >
> > I noticed that CVS reports this as part of the version logs:
> >
> > date: 2000/09/13 05:49:30; author: cvs; state: Exp; lines: +19 -19
&
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:16:47PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> Adam Turoff wrote:
> > Well, use CVS, not su.
>
> the su was for when not using the pserver, since I'm not sure whether CVS uses
> your UID, or some environment variable to grab your user name when not u
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:37:40PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I vaguely recall when Chip put that in. He worked pretty hard to
> adjust the command line/#! option processing. (Something about
> unsafe operations already being done before the script is read.)
The crux of my proposal/request is
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:21:58AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2000 02:09:23 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> >A version of Memoize.pm should be added into the Perl6 standard
> >library, and it should be added as a pragmatic module (i.e. memoize.pm).
>
> Is that it?
>
> I would rath
The discussion about RFC 227 in -internals brought up a few good ideas
about a taint pragma. In brief:
- taint(), tainted() and other such functions would be useful
when sending scalars around or inspecting them. A few other
functions may fall into this category.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> But these all lack command line switches that are passed to perl.
>
> DS> No, they don't. Not everywhere, certainly. Command-line switches
> DS> can be passed to all of 'em
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:04:50PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:15 AM 9/15/00 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:37:40PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > I vaguely recall when Chip put that in. He worked pretty hard to
> > > adjust the comman
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:03:50PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:52 AM 9/15/00 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:52:00AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > > =head1 TITLE
> > >
> > > Extend the window to turn on taint mode
> >
> >As long as we're talking about t
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:17PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I am curious if this applies to any Working Groups besides perl6-language.
I don't see why not. We're nearing the 300 RFC mark, and most of
the RFCs have yet to make it to v2. I don't think encouaging
hit-and-run RFC submission
Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
Problem: Frozen RFCs are being updated.
--
Solution #1: Ignore updates to frozen/retired RFCs
Solution #2: Allow frozen/retired RFCs to be updated,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:11:27PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
> > I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
> > actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
>
> In preparation for the end-run of RFCing, how about we compile a lis
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:18:19PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I'm against fractional version numbers on the grounds that it's
> another piece of knowledge that must be held before someone can
> understand the system (think of 5.004_54 and how hideous that system
> was). Integers imply all
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:18:41AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Piers Cawley writes:
> > The idea here is to allow people to get ideas on the lists in a rough
> > form where they can get some initial comments (which may blow the
> > 'real' RFC out of the water...). There should be some very s
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 02:18:50AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 01:35:42AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
> >
> > Problem: Frozen RFCs are being updated.
>
> Solution #4:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:12:33PM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> Some background would help--how is Larry being fed these RFCs?
By pointing his browser to http://dev.perl.org/rfc/. Just like the
rest of us.
I seriously doubt he's using Grail or tkWeb as his browser though. :-)
Z.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 02:04:51AM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-09-18-01:35:42 Adam Turoff:
> > Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
>
> An interesting puzzle. As the author of RFC 70, I've felt like I
> should make some updates, b
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:47:11AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > That *shouldn't* be hard. If you're getting hung up on details like
> > =over 4, =item, L<> and C<>, then leave them out.
>
> No, I'm getting hung up on the fact that it'll take a bunch of time to
> flesh out the RFCs beyond a s
In order to trim the large number of RFCs that have not been updated in
many weeks, yet are still "in development", I've prepared a report
of which RFCs are most overdue.
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/overdue.html
Here is the current status, broken down by group:
Report generated: Tue Sep 19 07:06
All RFCs must fall into one of three status categories:
Developing (RFC is incomplete; commments requested)
Frozen (Comments received; nothing more to say)
Retracted (Comments received; author is removing idea from
consideration.)
(NB: 'Retracted'
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:07:33AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > And then there's the lexical variable issue too:
> >
> >The default variable scope rules for Ruby (default: local) are
> >much better suited for medium-to-large scale programming ta
Sorry this is so long. No time to condense it.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:41:20PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> =head2 Core bloat?
>
> The most obvious objection is core bloat. 5.6.0 is already over 5
> megs and only going to get fatter. Throwing lots of modules into the
> core will
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 06:49:20PM -0500, Curtis Jewell wrote:
> From: "Adam Turoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Are you proposing something like this:
> >
> > Standard distribution:
> > 1: Everything (core, docs, standard modules)
> >
> > Alter
Perl6 RFCs: Overdue RFCs
Report generated: Wed Sep 20 21:40:38 2000 GMT
265 RFCs submitted.
189 RFCs in development.
126 RFCs not updated within the last 7 days.
perl6-language: 56 RFCs overdue
perl6-internals: 18 RFCs overdue
perl6-language-data: 10 RFCs overdue
perl6-language-flow: 8
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 02:56:20AM -0500, Curtis Jewell wrote:
> Or would this tool be restricted to compile-time dependencies only?
I see no problem restricting dependency graphs to compile-time
dependencies.
Z.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 02:13:41PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> and if the file test names are only loaded via a pragma it should be
> ok. it is not clear to me that you want that.
It's not clear that I want that either.
This is probably a plea for a subset of 'use english;', possibly
'use en
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #0022
make marshalling easy. core module? would this allow for easy
persistence of data structures other than dbm files?
general persistence is hard, right? can this be an attribute?
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #0004
Need perl to spit out pod/non-pod, like cc -E. Pod is too hard to parse.
This would make catpod trivially implemented as a compiler filter.
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #0025
Make -T the default when operating in a CGI env. That is, taintmode.
Will this kill us? Close to it. Tough. Insecurity through idiocy
is a problem. Make them *add* a switch to make it insecure, like
-U, if that's wha
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #0026
Make CGI programming easier. Make as first class as
@ARGV and %ENV for CLI progging.
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #0043
Write something that spits out module dependencies. Like makedep.
A tool that sources but doesn't run? a program/module then spits
out %INC might suffice. Can we autobundle with CPAN tricks?
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #0101
Just like the "use english" pragma (the modern not-yet-written
version of "use English" module), make something for legible
fileops.
is_readable(file) is really -r(file)
note that these are hard to write now due to
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #
This:
($a,$b) = ;
should not drain whole ahndle on known LHS count, to rescue
my($x) = ;
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 04:41:21AM -0400, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> > > > > Robust input parsing: yes.
> > > >
> > > > > General purpose output formatting: no, [...]
> > > >
> > > > > Rudimentary HTTP header emission: probably.
>
> So this is the definition of first-class?
Have you read the RFC
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Ziggy, are you interested in this idea enough (at all?) to stick a note
> about the 'header' function into the RFC? Or should I RFC it separately?
Adding headers() to the core language (or a similar pragma that is
automagically invo
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Really, I don't see why we can't
> just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
Z.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:34:32AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Which is what I'm working on. You'll all be extremely pleased to know, I'm
> > sure, that I have notes here for another 12 RFCs. After that, I have to start
> > thinking.
>
> Three days to
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:33:01PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > perl6-internals is probably the wrong forum for this, it was just
> > convenient. I think Dan's got the right idea, distribute a Taint
> > module with Perl.
>
> I'm not sure what's happened on -inte
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.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:01:06PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Stephen" == Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen> Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his
> Stephen> misinterpretation of Larry's plans but said he still
> Stephen> planned to lean on peopl
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
>
> My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be
> much of an interest. I was tryin
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 03:36:20PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Tom Christiansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >- Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
> >
> > Strongly disagree.
>
> Ok, you disagree. There are differing opinions here. Can we agree to
> disagree?
No.
A
101 - 154 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
