[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PIT - Perl Intergration Testers
Alan Burlison
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whispered:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| PIT - Perl Intergration Testers
|
| Alan Burlison
Not to pick on Alan, God knows he's been doing us all a real favor lately
with the leaktest stuff. But can we please stop crossposting
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
valuable and interesting. (aside: Python is Mahler. Discuss.) So while we may
Hmm, I think of Python as more Babbit than Mahler. Perl is ... John Cage?
-dave
/*==
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==*/
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
be a new one (perl-pdd)?
I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
How about two lists?
I
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
RFC 362
---
=head1 TITLE
The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.
It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The only reason
things have
At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
be a new one (perl-pdd)?
I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
be a new one (perl-pdd)?
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Sugalski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Edward Peschko" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and
CPAN)
..we're waiting
for Larry..
yep
At 04:43 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the
Dan Sugalski writes:
I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually
want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implementation of things.
Ultimately, I think we're going to need at
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
actually
want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:42:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
Sounds good to me.
Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria? PDD 0 describes
an acceptable baseline on
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:51, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Honestly, the PDDs are for the stuff that was implemented, not the stuff
that was decided. Or, more clearly, PDDs describe the implementation or
proposed implementation at the internals level. RFCs are for
language-level
features.
It
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 18:17, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Ultimately, I think we're going to need at least three different
types of documentation:
* internals design documents (PDDs)
* language design documents (PLDs?)
* change requests, once we've got something to change (PCRs)
That
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for clues.
How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
Can you confirm the actual submission address?
15 matches
Mail list logo
