Allison Randal wrote:
More specifically: If you have any questions related to a PDD in clip,
please add them to a QUESTIONS section at the end of the PDD. For
requirements, use REQUIREMENTS. Neither of these sections will live in
the final version of the PDD, so it's a flag for me to process
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
OK, so I've added a REQUIREMENTS section to the objects PDD now and
filled it out with some (hopefully most) of what Perl 6 and .Net need as
a start.
Thanks Jonathan, it's a great start!
Allison
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 23 October 2006 09:49, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Would it be a good idea to start collecting requirements together from
different language implementors so that when the time comes to work on
the OO PDD, there is already a good description of what it needs to do?
Allison Randal wrote:
I think the object model needs a thorough going over in general
Yup. It's on the list right after I/O, threads, and events.
-- for
the reasons above and because it's an unproven system. I'm not
convinced that it will handle all of Perl 6's needs as is. No serious
OO
On Monday 23 October 2006 09:49, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Would it be a good idea to start collecting requirements together from
different language implementors so that when the time comes to work on
the OO PDD, there is already a good description of what it needs to do?
If so, I'm happy
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:49:08PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Allison Randal wrote:
I think the object model needs a thorough going over in general
Yup. It's on the list right after I/O, threads, and events.
...
Ruby is a serious OO language, but it's not finished yet. For that
