Re: are API definitions implementation details?

[Dan Sugalski]

At 04:41 PM 8/9/00 +0000, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> > >
> > > this list is _only_ concerned with implementation details.
> >
> > Well, assuming you consider API definitions implementation details. :)
> >
> >                                         Dan
>
>
>I thought from the example RFC that perl6-internals was the only list
>there was, or that the librarian would assign to a list (as happens
>at IETF) if I suggested wrong list.

This is the only internals list at the moment. When things get going it'll 
likely split off, since the issues that affect the lexer are different than 
those that affect the optimizer or GC, or whatever.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk