On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 03:04:08PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>I think this is a good candidate for recording why we decided not to do
>something.
>
>Did we even reach consensus on how to do this? Put a Status: header in
>VERSION?
>
>For recording purposes, maybe once the Status: line is added we should
>add an additional section. Maybe STATUS, JUSTIFICATION, POSTMORTEM, or
>something else, that can just have a one-paragraph explanation, like:
>
>=head1 STATUS
>
>Consensus has been reached that filehandles will be represented as
>scalars or objects in scalars (C<$fh>) everywhere. Therefore, there is
>no need to make a new type out of them. This RFC has been withdrawn.
I like this solution a lot. Gnat, can we implement it, since there is
now an active need for it?
I'd also like to congratulate and thank Peter for so gracefully
acknowledging that better and more widely accepted alternatives were
available. This is a fantastic example of the RFC process at its best.
Thanks to all involved.
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994
