At 02:45 PM 8/4/00 -0400, John Tobey wrote:
>I guess, more than establishing a working group, I'm hoping to siphon
>GC debates out of the more general internals list, since a lot of
>people love discussing GC at great length, and I don't expect that
>debate to have much relevance to the rest of the internals.
I'd rather not do that, though. The perl lists are supposed to be rather
more targeted than that. (Not that I mind a good GC discussion, but the
point is to get an RFC for a workable scheme)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
- Re: Multi-object locks (was Re: RFC 35 ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: Multi-object locks (was Re: RFC 35 ... Larry Wall
- Re: Multi-object locks (was Re: RFC 35 ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 35 / Re: perl6-internals-gc sub... Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 35 / Re: perl6-internals-gc sub... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 35 / Re: perl6-internals-gc sub... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: perl6-internals-gc sublist Dan Sugalski
- Re: perl6-internals-gc sublist John Tobey
- Re: perl6-internals-gc sublist Dan Sugalski
- Re: perl6-internals-gc sublist John Tobey
- Re: perl6-internals-gc sublist Dan Sugalski
- Re: perl6-internals-gc sublist John Tobey
- Re: perl6-internals-gc sublist Nathan Torkington
