Bryan C . Warnock
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:12:36 -0800
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:51, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Honestly, the PDDs are for the stuff that was implemented, not the stuff > that was decided. Or, more clearly, PDDs describe the implementation or > proposed implementation at the internals level. RFCs are for language-level > features. It should sort of do both. Okay, maybe arbitrary language decisions needn't be P?Dd, but there should be some documented consensus, even for a language feature, of what is (or will be), if only to give the developers a clear target to shoot for. > > We should have PDDs on garbage collection and memory allocation (I know, I > know--I'm working on it! :). We should not have PDDs on, say, currying. Well, a well-designed spec on currying language would certainly help with development of the internals to handle currying. It would also provide a nice starting point for the currying documentation. Lest the architect say, "Build me a house", and then complain that we don't match the plans he never gave us. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]