Re: State of PDD 0

[David Mitchell]

Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 07:44:51PM +0000, 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 author? This allows us to (hopefully)
> > unqiuely refer to a document during disussions, but when a final winner
> > is chosen and given a number, the offical library can still pretend the
> > losers never existed, unless people look in the 'losers' section.
> > EG
> >     PDD-dapm-GC
> >     
> > rather than
> > 
> >     PDD-TDB
> > 
> > for my attempt at garbage collection or whatever.
> 
> There are advantages with using simple enumeration for RFCs/PDDs.  (I'll
> beat that dead horse only upon request.)
> 
> The disadvantage of switching to a more descriptive naming scheme
> is that any identification attached to a PDD upon receipt must be
> final; a PDD cannot be renumbered/renamed once it has been accepted
> into the archives.  To do so would make it more difficult to search
> the archives for discussion about an idea -- searching on PDD-std-vtbl
> won't find the threads that lead to that standard, when it was
> called PDD-sugalski-vtbl.
> 
> Perhaps a more descriptive prefix/suffix notation on PDDs would
> improve upon the anonymous nature of RFCs/PDDs, so long as a core
> name is assigned to a document never changes.

I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting.

Take GC as an example. At the end of the PDD process, I want
to see in the library a single doc called "PDD-3: Garbage collection".
What I was thinking was that if the process leading to that document
involves several competing designs being hammered out on the perl6-internals
list, then each competitor writes an 'unoffical' PDD which is just a
form of text that gets bandied about on the list, but doesnt get
submitted or anything. When a vague concensus has congealed, one of
the PDDs is submitted, gets a number, then progresses through the
developing->standard track.
I just thoght that rather than calling all these phantom PDDs
PDD-TBD, authors could give them temporary handles to refer during
discusssions, for convenience.

But it's not really that important, and I'm happy to drop the idea.