At 01:41 PM 2/22/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > emphatically not a series of RFCs.  We made mistakes with the RFC
> > process and don't want to repeat them.
>But you are making a fundamental mistake if PDDs are shoehorned to fit the
>entire design process. RFC's should be messy, outspoken, and they should 
>cover the entire spectrum of what perl is about. They should then be 
>drilled *down* into PDDs.

PDDs are for internals pretty much exclusively. If it doesn't involve the 
implementation or design of the low-level guts of perl, it doesn't belong 
in a PDD. Which isn't to say it has to all be C and bit-level things--the 
parser wedges that can be written in perl would be specified in perl, of 

Some random stranger should be able to take all the 'standard' PDDs 
(however they're marked) and build a perl interpreter/compiler. That's the 
plan, at least.

> > There's nothing stopping you, but the RFC archive is closed and
> > will likely not be reopened (save for some minor details in the
> > queue).  It's primary value is in cataloging a series of ideas of
> > what Perl could or should become.
>Exactly... and your point is that 'the number of things that perl6 which Perl
>could or should become' is now fixed in stone?

Well, I think Nat's planning on switching over a different name and 
restarting the numbering scheme, so that's something.

The bigger thing is that the new proposals will be based on the perl we 
produce from Larry's design. They'll be (mostly) incremental changes, 
rather than wildly radical ones, since they'll start from a fixed base.

I hope. :)

> > > So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
> >
> > The deadline was not artificial.  It was by design.
>yes. It was 'artificial' by design. It was artificially imposed. And it was
>wrongfully imposed.

Yes it was, and no it wasn't. At some point you need to retreat, take the 
brainstorming, and produce a spec then an implementation. We've left the 
brainstorming stage and are waiting for Larry to get the spec together. 
(More or less)

Once we've got an implementation, then it'll be time to start brainstorming 
in earnest again, though I fully expect there to be a batch of RFCs and 
PDDs for the things that didn't make the first cut for whatever reason. 
(Time, personnel, my sanity... :) That's OK too.

>I can see the value of having an initial 'cutoff', and then having cutoffs 
>going on forward, but to say *whoa nelly* the only forum now
>for off the cuff discussion is via thread is just wrong.

No, it's appropriate. Whether the delay between the cutoff and the spec is 
appropriate is what's really the issue. I'm not going to go there, though.

>We've tried that before; it was called perl5-porters. It led to the same idea
>over and over again because there was no formal way of cataloging good ideas
>and bad ideas.

Nah, p5p was something else entirely. I do think things'll go better for 
perl 6.

>And before you say 'this is PDD', think of exactly how badly this would dilute
>the PDDs. PDDs would contain everything from undigested ideas to meticulously
>crafted ones. It would be a mess.

Well, the RFC library (the real one the IETF has) is a lot like that, but 
the internet hasn't collapsed yet, Infinite Monkeys protocol or not.

> > If you want to contribute, patch bleadperl, or make a contribution
> > on what we're doing today.
>Ok, you are on. I'll write up my 30 ideas, and you'll accept them as PDDs. Ok?

No. Please don't, and save me the trouble of having to reject them. I'd 
rather not do that.


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

Reply via email to