John Porter wrote:
RFCs like "330: Global dynamic variables should remain the
default" should not need to be written! (No disrespect to you,
Nate.)
None taken; I actually agree. Unfortunately, I thought that -strict did
nowhere near enough analysis of scoping issues besides the initial
This proposal has some good thoughts. Cut me some slack for not
being completely supportive of it; in my country, when they allowed
the public to ask the elite candidates for office any question they
wanted, the favorite question was "Do you wear boxers or briefs?"
How about an open,
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.
Anyone have better suggestions?
I don't know that this is _better_, but...perhaps we could have
the lists that you
David Grove wrote:
The
community need that I _know_ is being ignored is the ability to have a perl
that's not taking a dive toward being slopped all over with the four-colored
flag.
David, please, you must be more specific and less idiomatic. I
don't even know what the four-colored flag
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 06:01:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
"General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling
council" thing to contend with. "What Larry says" is best, but what
happens
if he
I didn't say or do anything until towards the end, when Larry said:
"And some people even submitted RFCs describing conflicting ideas."
Cool, that's me, too!
Anyone who was there want to clue me into what was said?
jdb
