Another XS type of thing: Orchard/C

2000-11-15 Thread Nathan Torkington
--- start of forwarded message --- From: Ken MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Orchard/C 0.2.3 preview release available Date: 15 Nov 2000 09:38:56 -0600 Half of the Perl interface into Orchard/C is complete, you can now call C functions and return C objects to Pe

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

2000-11-15 Thread Adam Turoff
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:42:58PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: > > All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default. > > Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rejected', etc. have Real Meaning (tm), > > there should

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

2000-11-15 Thread John van V
Using the IBM article that Jarkko found as an example, core implementations of different languages may have more in common with each other than implemetations of the same language, I think PPC is actually significant enough so that it should not be painted into a perl-only corner. Seeing tha

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

2000-11-15 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:38 PM 11/15/00 -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: >On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:42:58PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: > > > All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default. > > > Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rej

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

2000-11-15 Thread Adam Turoff
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:20:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > I want perl 6's internal API to have the same sort of artistic integrity > that the language has. That's not, unfortunately, possible with everyone > having equal say. I'd like it to be otherwise, but that's just not possible > wit

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

2000-11-15 Thread David Grove
Nat and I argued parts of this (I think this is included) at some length. Actually, I think I drove him crazy getting specifics out of this. Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the pr

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

2000-11-15 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the principals (i.e. Me, Nat, or > > Larry, or our replacements) can mark a PDD as developing, standard, or > > superceded. >

Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

2000-11-15 Thread Adam Turoff
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the principals (i.e. Me, Nat, or > Larry, or our replacements) can mark a PDD as developing, standard, or > superceded. This doesn't sound right. All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Sta