"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 13:36, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > > The main difference is that p6-docs is intended to move very narrowly > > from topic to topic, in a roughly predetermined order, focusing on each > > But not to move faster than the design of the language.
Yeah, the problem we keep having is that the language design is appropriately progressing at the midrange-detail level (the elephant's eye?). While things like "what do we mean by 'type'" are very much A2 things, and among the first things both p6d and p6i will need set in stone (defenses of 'extreme programming' aside... :-)), they aren't entirely set yet. Not complaining, tho... that's just the way these things work, but it means we must engage in rather frequent theorization. > Then why have two lists? Dammit, I need to quit asking rhetorical > questions. My original proposal was for p6-lang to morph into the p6 documentation list, e.g. just retool it to be the source of the documentation effort. However, there were reasons for not doing that, the most significant of which was to avoid subjecting the design team to even more discussions on even more simultaneous topics. There's also the issue of potential treeware authors perhaps being uncomfortable with working directly on open-source p6 docs, for fear of tainting their own efforts later. I definitely understand the problem, and I don't know of an answer. Most of the design team regularly checks in with p6d anyway, so it's unclear how much time is really being saved by having separate lists. But when p6-docs didn't exist, p6-lang was doing a poor job of following through on the more precise/mundane/icky issues, because it simply isn't mandated to do so. Hmm. One possibility is that I use perl6-lang to introduce each new documentation topic/section and we have our initial general discussion there -- e.g. present the outlines of what needs to be documented in the currently-active section, request feedback, make proposals, etc., and we use Perl6-docs only to post and edit the actual documentation itself, once _all_ the issues have been checked off. But my worries are that we could not keep P6L sufficiently focused, resulting in an even *bigger* tangle of threads; that we can't really *have* the discussions without posting the proposed documentation too; and that P6L would not respond to the more dedicated authors' proddings for NO REALLY, DECIDE THIS NOW OR WE CAN'T MOVE ON. The level of detail needed is quite tedious, I'm not sure how many people on P6L would be OK with having the list be used for that level of fussiness. (?) So I, for one, am open to suggestions. We clearly shouldn't have the same language discussions in two places, but at the same time we clearly must have better-organized discussions than we've historically been doing on p6l, in order for them to be of any use to the doc authors. MikeL
