On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:23:32 +0100, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, some of you may have noticed that I've suddenly started writing one or
> two little RFCs. Yes, this is really me, the same guy who was convinced that
> Perl 6 was an exercise in how quick we could all go to hell in
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:17:40AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> Can I forward this to perl.comp.lang.misc and perl.comp.lang.moderated?
Please feel free.
> Maybe it's more in brian's lane to spot these messages and react on them,
Well, yes, Perl 6 has been getting a bit of a bad press, and,
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:11:13PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Remember: Oct 1st is a true deadline, coming from the powers above,
> meaning if your RFC is not frozen by then, it will be auto-retracted
> and not considered.
Hm. So this means there's no point me submitting anything now, because
> "Simon" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> Hm. So this means there's no point me submitting anything
Simon> now, because it's not going to have time to be discussed
Simon> and frozen? G-r-reat.
Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his misinterpretation of
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:54:36PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his misinterpretation of
> Larry's plans but said he still planned to lean on people to finish by
> October 1 otherwise they'd never get done.
Yuh, I just realised that the bulk of the on
> "Stephen" == Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his
Stephen> misinterpretation of Larry's plans but said he still
Stephen> planned to lean on people to finish by October 1
Stephen> otherwise they'd never get done.
Subject: ANNOUNCE: perl 6 released
From: John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 1997/07/21
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <5h3d45$mn3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: InterLog Internet Services
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl.mod
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:01:06PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Stephen" == Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen> Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his
> Stephen> misinterpretation of Larry's plans but said he still
> Stephen> planned to lean on peopl
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be
much of an interest. I was trying to decide today whether I should
freeze or withdraw.
-dlc
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
>
> My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be
> much of an interest. I was tryin
At 07:56 PM 9/28/00 -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
>
>My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be
>much of an interest. I was trying to decide today w
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:04:47PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
> >
> > My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 re
* Daniel Chetlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [29 Sep 2000 14:10]:
[...]
> My RFC is predicated on the notion that perl5 will look enough like
> perl6 that we won't have to rewrite all of the docs, and thus there's
> plenty to be done as of now. With all of these people flurrying about
> in excitement abo
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:15:25PM +1100, iain truskett wrote:
> * Daniel Chetlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [29 Sep 2000 14:10]:
> > My RFC is predicated on the notion that perl5 will look enough like
> > perl6 that we won't have to rewrite all of the docs, and thus
> > there's plenty to be done as of n
14 matches
Mail list logo
