On Feb 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, Michael O'Brien wrote: > The reason is we could remove a few road blocks with some design > notes. > These won't be as complete as the spec but could from the basis of > writing some of the spec prose.
Ok. >> Also, the spec can reference the RI (not just SML but, for the >> standard library, the self-hosted ES4!) in a systematic way. >> Proposals >> preceded the RI. > > The problem here is time. I think doing the spec with the required > level > of rigour will take much longer than would be ideal to get > implementations started. Yes, I've agreed with this loudly recently (no waterfall). >> Tracking issues is a job for the trac, although there's always room >> for on-the-side summaries linking to tickets, if you keep editing to >> keep up with the primary source of truth in the trac. > > I think the summaries are where the gold is. That is the piece we are > missing. We actually have a lot of information, but it is scattered > and > hard to put together in a coherent manner. In this light the overview and tutorial were more than the sum of their parts from the wiki and trac. >>> I'll start the ball rolling with writing up some notes on Program >>> Units, use unit and unit dependencies. Brendan/Jeff: what format >>> would you like these notes in? >> > > You missed this question above. No, I ducked :-). Lars is editor with Jeff assisting and (as always) maintaining the grammar; I would appreciate Graydon's thoughts too. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
