When writing RFCs that talk about the inclusion of "interesting" new
features--things like coroutines, matrix math, bizarre regex theory (yes, I
know that's redundant), curried (or garlic'd, or peppered) subs, for
example--it would be helpful if there was a good reference in the
references section of the RFC. It doesn't have to be on-line, books or
periodicals are just fine, nor does it have to be included in the initial
proposal, but it should be in the final one, and the earlier the better.
A quick rule of thumb should be "If it's not convered in the Camel 3ed, it
ought to have a reference". This'll help folks that might participate but
have no idea what you're talking about, the people that need to judge
whether it's reasonable and feasable, as well as the people that will have
to write the code to implement the feature. Even if it's something that
"most CS educated folks" ought to know (a category a number of us don't
necessarily fall into), it's handy to know where to look to brush up on the
details of the thing in question.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
