On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 09:17, Garrett Goebel wrote: > > p6d exists to document the language. A task which consists of going over the > A&E's and Larry's posts to p6l, etc. and flushing them out into > deliverables: > > o Perl6/Parrot regression tests > o Language Specification derived from tests > o Core Perl Documentation / User Manual > > Flushing them out consists of: > o disambiguation > o isolating potential problems > o writing tests and documentation > > I have difficulty separating the pd6 disambiguation discussions from > language design... as I expect do others. Language design discussion belongs > on p6l. And I for one, would like to see a big red flag delimiting
It certainly isn't black and white, and that's understandable. It's a paint-by-numbers project, only no one's really put the numbers in yet. There may be a general consensus that this should be green and that should be blue, and it's p6d's job to work out what shade, or why that can't be the case. Other sections may be arbitrarily colored, and those are a little more fuzzy, but p6d can usually test and document that, too. p6d shouldn't be drawing the picture, though. Let Larry look at the p6l and draw the elephant. You guys just make sure it doesn't turn out white. > speculation, when it occurs on p6d. Though there's the p6d argument that a > limited amount of speculation is called for, in that we should use the p6d > cabal to work our language design issues into a coherent refined proposal > before dumping them into the fray that is p6l. > > > > , and how does it differ from p6l? > > p6d differs from p6l, in that p6d has a specific goal: "document the > language". Whereas p6l is a rather more ambiguous forum for people to > influence Larry's design and explain it one another. > > That said, it is also hoped that p6d will also have a beneficial effect on > p6l. Where p6l undergoes an iterative wave of questions and proposals > re-examining issues covered in previous A&E's following each new release, > p6d hopes to annotate its documentation to include the various trade-offs > involving alternative syntax, semantics, implementation impacts, ideological > ax grinding, etc. so that p6l can refer people to the old arguments instead > of wasting ever more time on them. Yeah, I wanted the same thing with PDD 0. :-) Hopefully this will turn out better. :-) -- Bryan C. Warnock bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
