On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 11:13:27AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:53:00PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > > May I point out that "the camel was designed by committee"*, too?
> >
> > The camel was certainly not,
>
> I presume you haven't ever heard t
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:53:00PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > May I point out that "the camel was designed by committee"*, too?
>
> The camel was certainly not,
I presume you haven't ever heard the famous epigram to which I alluded?
> > Really, I'd like to see this De
Simon Cozens wrote:
> (Incidentally, has anyone noticed that John Porter and I appear to have
> *completely* different opinions about *everything*?)
Good thing you're both on the committee...
O O
<
\/
--
Glenn
=
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you j
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:53:00PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> May I point out that "the camel was designed by committee"*, too?
The camel was certainly not, and this Camel isn't going to be either.[1]
> Really, I'd like to see this Designed By Committee Considered Harmful
> myth put to rest.
I
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> 'rewrite' is not the same as 'design', fortunately. I fervently hope that
> the language design will be the product only of ideas Larry either came up
> with or agreed with; if we get into some voting scenario, that spells
> doom. May I point out that COBOL was designe
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:08:00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>May I point out that COBOL was designed by a committee.
That ain't bad enough.
Let me point out that we don't need another Ada or PL/1.
--
Bart.
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> bits of both systems so it all can be wedged into perl. I'd really
DS> like to incorporate the good bits of VMS' async I/O and event
DS> handling into perl, for example.
hear! hear! as the author/maintainer of the event loop and
as
At 06:40 PM 10/5/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:38:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
> > the community's rewrite. (The alternative is to have the thing be *my*
> > rewrite, and I don't think we w
At 11:08 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Scott wrote:
>> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
>> > > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>
> > Peter Scott wrote:
> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
> > > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
> neither is
> > > the community - I hope. Larry
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:38:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
> the community's rewrite. (The alternative is to have the thing be *my*
> rewrite, and I don't think we want that... :)
Will no preprocessor symbols defined the
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:17:27PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> RFCs are written to help Larry review the issues,
> and present some new ones. [...]
RFCs are part of our community library.
All of the summarization that is done in the RFC process is done
for our fearless leader, as well as for th
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> that's why others can (or could) submit RFCs that contradict it, if they
> want to. The author is no more obliged to include opposing opinions in
> their RFC than the proposer of a bill in the House
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:42:57PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Any others? There are bugs in the RFC process. Now is the time to
> > fix them.
>
> I don't know whether this is worth a separate improvement # but here goes:
>
> Too many RFCs live in a vacuum by not not explaining in enou
> Any others? There are bugs in the RFC process. Now is the time to
> fix them.
I don't know whether this is worth a separate improvement # but here goes:
Too many RFCs live in a vacuum by not not explaining in enough detail
what is the problem they are trying to solve, but instead go ahead an
[Moving this discussion to -meta. See Reply-To.]
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:14:39PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > I disagree. The RFC process is for generating ideas, not making decisions,
> > nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> > that's why others ca
> I disagree. The RFC process is for generating ideas, not making decisions,
> nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> that's why others can (or could) submit RFCs that contradict it, if they
> want to. The author is no more obliged to include opposing opinions
At 08:36 AM 10/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
>like this when the following is true:
>
> > A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
> > majority seems against using XML-DTD documentation, but g
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:18:22PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> Do you expect that your 7 retracted RFCs to be looked at by future
> developers? Even if they had good, but unpopular, points to make? Or do
> you expect that once retracted, they will be ignored?
Mostly.
There are some core d
At 08:36 04/10/2000 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>This RFC should either be retracted, or revised into:
>
> POD to XML translation should be easier
On this subject, I have notes about a Pod::SAX module that would make
pod2xml much easier. If I have time to implement it I'll do it, but I can't
tel
At 08:36 AM 10/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > =head1 TITLE
> >
> > Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
>
> > =head1 VERSION
> >
> > Status: Frozen
>
>I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
>like this when the following is true:
>
> > A lot of
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 08:36:32AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> against them. The whole point of this Perl 6 process is to develop a
> language that the community thinks is the right direction, right?
Really? I thought the whole point of this was to develop suggestions to
put to Larry, for him to
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
> =head1 VERSION
>
> Status: Frozen
I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
like this when the following is true:
> A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
23 matches
Mail list logo
