At 01:36 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>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.
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.
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.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
