Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote: RFC 362 --- =head1 TITLE The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive. It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The only reason things have paused (and it is a pause, not a stop) is that we're waiting for Larry to take what's been done so far and build something resembling a coherent base we can implement. After that's done then we'll have something to work from, which is a good thing. Ok, fair enough. I think that perl should have a two-tiered process though, and it should be ongoing and two tiered. Bryan Warnock mentioned PDD as being 'comprehensive', but I think that is a mistake. There should be a more formal process for distilling conversations, lest we repeat length(@array), '??', etc, ad-nauseum. PDD should be stuff that was decided as 'golden' and then implemented. If we don't ever stop, ponder, and implement, the RFCs will be just another go-round of intellectual masturbation. (and we *really* don't need to go there...) Yeah, it means the process will be bursty, but that's just the nature of the beast. Fair enough too, except that my time *too* is bursty, and that the time I can give may or may not correspond with community time. I'll write them down, and post them to perl6-rfc (or perl6-meta). And if they miss the 'original' pass, that's fine with me. Ed
Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
- Original Message - From: "Dan Sugalski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Edward Peschko" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:51 PM Subject: Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN) ..we're waiting for Larry.. yep wry smile I am, basically, just *dying* to see perl6! Ho Hum...
Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
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]
