From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> >The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.
>
> It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The
> only reason things have paused (and it is a pause, not a
> stop) is that we're waiting for Larry to take what's been
> done so far and build something resembling a coherent base
> we can implement. After that's done then we'll have
> something to work from, which is a good thing.
This is perhaps the 3rd recent "waiting for Larry" comment posted in the
last week. I don't mind waiting... good things take time. But this mushroom
_is_ curious to hear if anyone has got wind of the current state of affairs?
I'm particularly curious to hear what if any ideas Larry will be
contributing beyond the herculean task of digesting, regurgitating, and
whipping Perl 5 + 361 RFC's of varying quality into a language
specification.
o Will experiences from Ruby be assimilated back into Perl?
o What impact will C# and .NET have on Perl 6? Don't forget
Larry's required reading recommendation:
http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html
o Where will the foreign function interface be heading?
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 2000-11-01 7:06 PM
>
> The hope is to extend Perl's subroutine declaration
> syntax (via types and attributes) to the point where
> a "forward" declaration in Perl of a C, Java, or C#
> routine can supply all the glue information formerly
> supplied by XS. While this will undoubtedly give us
> some rather strange looking Perl, I'd rather look at
> potentially strange Perl than certainly strange XS.
