Dan Sugalski wrote: > >Meanwhile we all go rambling around on cross-threads and come up > >with no coherent set of proposals. > > So? If the idea has merit, it'll make it into one or more RFCs, and Larry's > rather good at making things coherent. If it just putters around for a > while on the list, then maybe it's really not worth all that much. What Karl was trying to get at is a suggestion to have one RFC on indexing instead of three competing ones, for example. The current approach seems to be make a new RFC always (regardless what is there already). The other approach would be to take existing ones and rewrite them heavily. Christian
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Dan Sugalski
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicin... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and sl... Dan Sugalski
- Access to the perl6 parser Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Christian Soeller
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Jim Edwards
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing an... Christian Soeller
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexi... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Bart Lateur
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... c . soeller
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Karl Glazebrook