At 04:17 PM 11/2/00 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:12:50AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > As an RFC author and persistent discutant, I always assumed that
> > all/most/many of such qualified internals folks would be reading
> > the perl6 lists, and would squawk when appropriate.
>On the whole, driving a spike between language and internals by giving them
>separate lists was not a good idea.

In some ways it was premature. In others it was a good thing. Like 
everything else, there were tradeoffs involved.

Many of the folks who participated in -language were *not* internals folks. 
It wasn't their area of expertise, many of them would've been scared off by 
discussions of the guts, and most (generally self-admittedly) had nothing 
much to contribute to internals design. Leaving the lists together would've 
either left internals discussion out entirely (and while there wasn't much, 
it was there) or scared these folks off. p5p does that in a big way. 
(Granted the guts of perl 5 are pretty off-putting in general)

We would be well-served if we could manage to merge things to some extent, 
certainly, but I don't think the separation's made things worse than what 
we would've gotten if we hadn't done that.


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

Reply via email to