At 11:01 PM 10/1/00 +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
>Personally I'm very concerned about the 'every RFC should have an
>implementation section' near-requirement.
This, I'll agree, is going over the top. It's a good requirement, since it
means people *must* think hard about how a feature will be b
At 09:56 AM 10/1/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
>Part of Perl's problems, a severe internal problem that has external (user
>side) consequences, is that Perl does *not* have anyone to speak policy with,
Yes, it does, as much as any piece of software can. For language issues
there's Larry. For inte
I am in the process of drafting a proposal, and have at a minimum split the
thread. However, thank you for pointing out which list this should go in. I'll
redirect further messages there.
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 11:56 AM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> It's valid to wa
It's valid to want to change the cultural makeup of perl6, but the
-language list is not the place for it. Try perl6-meta, and please
make concrete proposals. I see this "p5p sucks, we need something
better" as pointless unless there are definite ideas of what would
be better.
Nat
> The Perl-KGB-elite has got to go, and a free republic must replace
> it.
I wouldn't go as far as your entire post, neither in form nor content,
but I do have concerns about the sociopsycho(patho)logy of the Perl
community.
Personally I'm very concerned about the 'every RFC should have an
imple
I'm afraid I had a family crisis yesterday, else another RFC would have been
submitted.
Part of Perl's problems, a severe internal problem that has external (user
side) consequences, is that Perl does *not* have anyone to speak policy with,
while the community itself is submerged in issues of
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ed Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I tried to contribute on this list but it seems we've coalesced downto Tom
> > and a handful of others. No one else has a voice.
>
> Hmm... not my experience. But then I've only seen your message here
> bec
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 09:39:20AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:34:55AM +, Ed Mills wrote:
> > I tried to contribute on this list bu
[You know, I think something went wrong there. Let's try again.]
The RFC process gets you a hotline to Larry on an equal footing wit
"Ed Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried to contribute on this list but it seems we've coalesced downto Tom
> and a handful of others. No one else has a voice.
Hmm... not my experience. But then I've only seen your message here
because of Simon's response to it, my spamfilter sees your
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:34:55AM +, Ed Mills wrote:
> I tried to contribute on this list bu
--
"He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable."
I tried to contribute on this list but it seems we've coalesced downto Tom
and a handful of others. No one else has a voice.
I have nothing but respect for Tom, Nathan, et al, but its no longer my idea
of a community - more like a faction. I'm getting more into PHP now and
less into Perl, onl
11 matches
Mail list logo
