On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 11:40:47AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> >
> > (The deadline for collecting ideas passed two weeks ago. Why is this all
> > still going on?)
>
> Because there are still many worthy ideas which have not surfaced yet.
>
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 a handbasket.
I admit it. I was wrong.
What's caused this dramatic change of min
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:34:32AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Which is what I'm working on. You'll all be extremely pleased to know, I'm
> > sure, that I have notes here for another 12 RFCs. After that, I have to
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
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
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:49:51AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Please take your paranoia elsewhere. I think if you actually sat down
> and had lunch with each of the parties involved, and those further out
> but well-informed, you'd find a consistent view of reality that
> doesn't match AN
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 04:06:00PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Personally I'm betting that the volume we've seen on -language will
> pale into tiny insignificance compared to the volume on -internals
> once Larry has made his announcement.
I doubt it; I think we've a lot of people who want to ta
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:42:57PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Too many RFCs live in a vacuum by not not explaining in enough detail
> what is the problem they are trying to solve, but instead go ahead and
> pull new/backward-incompatible syntax and/or keywords and/or semantics
> out of thin
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> I realize that's hard to do, and "core" developers get swamped, but
> without a public voice
Perl 6 Public Relations - brian d foy
The public relations side of development relays important
events and happenings
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:10:57PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> >Perl 6 Public Relations - brian d foy
>
> Public relations? Uh, who is the Perl 6 information officer?
I don't have the faintest idea.
--
"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:34:33PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> is there some way we can duplicate/adapt
> their process so that we can simultaneously put to rest both David Grove's
> concerns about elitism and Dan Sugalski's concerns about lack of planning?
No.
--
Everything that can ever be in
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:11:54PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> Perhaps, then, there should be one more officer, chosen by Larry himself.
> This person would be responsible for collecting public opinions and
> representing them to the developer group, who needs to follow that guidance
> as long as
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:38:17PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see a problem yet. If Perl were
> somehow being "taken over", then I expect the Perl community (at the
> very least, one David Grove :-) to be up in arms about it.
And then they could fork,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:40:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> You're being too specific. There is no assumption possible that perl
> developers will do *anything*. Ever. This is a volunteer community. Any
> other assumption you might make is unfounded.
David also seems to miss the irony that
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
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 11:08:36PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> I repeat my suggestion from a couple of days ago that someone author
> a document on "how to politely fork your own development effort,"
I happen to be in the middle of an article on this very subject.
--
"The elde
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:42:24PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> This one's double:
>
> Compilers,Principles, Techniques and Tools
> Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools.
You should read it twice.
--
IBM Pollyanna Principle:
Machines should work. People should think.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 04:59:50PM -0400, Jorg Ziefle wrote:
> Detailed information should follow soon. Should I write an RFC to
> discuss about, though I would come a bit late? :(
RFC 313 not good enough for you? :)
--
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:32:32AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Rename the local operator? Yeah, I think we ought to do that. It
> confuses people when we call it local(). The problem is, of course,
> that this is not a perfect solution--they haven't come up with the
> right name here: savetmp, t
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:58:45AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> @foo wa kaite kudasai;
Wahey, INTERCAL in Japanese.
"Now, we have to start over from scratch". That's INTERCAL.
--
The debate rages on: Is Perl Bachtrian or Dromedary?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 02:37:16PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg00517.html
No, and no, and no.
--
Sendmail may be safely run set-user-id to root.
-- Eric Allman, "Sendmail Installation Guide"
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 04:11:34PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
I'd just like to stoke the latent paranoia.
> Published by Microsoft Press
> Published by Microsoft Press
> Published by Microsoft Press
> Published by Wiley
> Published by Dorset House
--
Putting heated bricks close to the new
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:11:56AM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> My critique of the Perl 6 RFC process and following discussion is now
> available at
> http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
Agree 100% to every point.
--
"The best index to a person's character is a) how he t
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:12:50AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> As an RFC author and persistent discutant, I always assumed that
> all/most/many of such qualified internals folks would be reading
> the perl6 lists, and would squawk when appropriate.
On the whole, driving a spike between language
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
> who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting up
> the RFC process.
I'm trying to say this carefully, but the first few days of the pr
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:44:50AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Firstly, now, for the first time in the Perl history, we opened up the
> floodgates, so the speak, and had at least some sort of (admittedly)
> weakly formalized protocol of submitting ideas for enhancement,
> instead of the shar
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:07:14PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> I'd really hate it if the sort of people who use Java were to join
> the perl camp, then we'd be tainted by their work.
You miss the point. *We already are*. Now what?
--
Hi, this is Ken. What's the root password?
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:01:45PM +, David Grove wrote:
> Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
> posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
> please suggest that the article be pulled.
Of course, because censorship is the onl
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:18:01AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Coming from someone whoe probably wrote more RFC's than anyone else (I
> count 33), I find that pretty ironic.
I had to inject some sense into the process somehow.
--
Morton's Law:
If rats are experimented upon, they will de
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
> generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
> rather less polite about things.
I think that's what they call a "false memory".
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
> voices during the RFC process.
Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to tell people on more
than one occasion to grow up and behave like a
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:54:31AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> I categorically do *NOT* want perl6-internals to turn into a basic course in
> compiler design, purely for the benefit of those who know nothing at all about
> what they're trying to achieve. I'd like Perl 6 to b
[Replies to perl5-porters, because it's more immediate.]
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:00:06AM +0100, H . Merijn Brand wrote:
> Testing, plain.
> i.e. I'm now pretty involved in p5p, and cannot spare time for p6, though
> I'm following most of it. What I could offer is testing the `current state'
This is the fourth time I've sent this mail to perl6-internals-api-parser,
but it doesn't seem to be arriving. None of my other mail is affected, and
perl5-porters is, for once, behaving itself; why this list in particular?
- Forwarded message from Simon Cozens <[EM
Eric Raymond's book-in-development ``The Art of Unix Programming'' says
this about the future of Perl:
> Perl usage has grown respectably, but the language itself has been stagnant
> for two years or more.
Bah. Looks like my Perl5-Porters summaries have been completely in vain. :)
The past two
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 06:17:19PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> The obvious and cutting rejoinder for me to make would be:
> "Hey. If I believed this, I'd still be writing Perl."
Don't look now, but your bias is showing. :)
> What *is* going on over there, anyway? It is unfortunately t
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:46:42AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > Perhaps we're not giving the right impression. Hey, brian, aren't
> > > you supposed to be preventing th
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 06:57:03AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Likewise. More so since I didn't even receive it.
I retract that; I've been having mail problems all weekend and it's
since arrived.
> Brian, you're not in my good books today, this month or this year.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 11:28:45AM -0500, brian d foy wrote:
> okay. i quit.
Well, hm. I'd rather we actually made something positive out of this.
There's obvious FUD out there and we don't seem to be giving the impression of
getting much done, or doing anything to counter it. Part of the probl
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:03:12PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> In order to do something about this, I suggest that we should:
> i) ...
> ii) ...
I forgot iii)...
Ask, could we have the PDDs placed up on dev.perl.org in the same way as the
RFCs, please?
So far we have
http:[EMAIL
ion about our public
image, and it was resolved that these summaries might help us let the
public know what's going on. So here we are.
And there we were. Until next week I remain, your humble and obedient
servant,
_
[8]Sim
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:00:05PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Again, We'll have continued discussion, but what the perl development
> project needs right now is a swift kick of *direction* from larry. And I'm
> pretty sure that he knows this.
I thought part of the idea was that we become self
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:30:19PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> And PR is a function of people listening to people that they know (and
> presumably respect). As much as we make summaries, et al, it is Larry that
> they primarily know. And Larry saying something will get it put on slashdot.
Ye
By the way, Ed, mail to you is bouncing with user unknown.
--
$\=" ";@a=qw/hacker, Perl another Just/;sub TIESCALAR{bless[]};tie $a,$a;
*STORE=*FETCH=sub{print pop @a};$_++for$a,$a;
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 06:40:49PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Apologizing would be a good place to start. As many folks have
> pointed out, it's hard to find capable intelligent volunteers.
> And you just chased one away, a reprehensible act of destruction.
I did say that I retracted my r
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 08:18:30PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Just speaking for myself, I'd rather see an apology. A retraction
> is impersonal, but an apology implies you regret it.
Fair enough. I saw a retraction as "eek, I didn't mean to say *that*".
Sorry, brian. I *didn't* mean to sa
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 11:26:54AM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> It also sounds like a good task for the PAWBs[1] - perhaps as contributors
> while you handle the editing?
Very good thinking! I've already had a couple of volunteers (Thanks guys!)
so to save me sending out the same mail over a
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 07:32:46PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> David L. Nicol writes:
> > Is there a budget? Apprenticeship makes all kinds of sense when
> > there is actually a money flow into the guild; the carrot of eventual
> > credentials is too weak for me and many lesser poetasters.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 02:52:35AM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> I made a simple list of what we have so far at
> http://dev.perl.org/ppd/
Magic! Thanks very much!
(And for all the rest of the perl.org work, natch... :)
--
"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."
--
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:13:17 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: perl6 not stagnant
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Real-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: English,en
perhaps another way perl6 c
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:57:13AM -0500, Kirrily Skud Robert wrote:
> Would anyone like to volunteer to do weekly summaries
Well, don't forget that I *do* have people helping me out with the weekly
summaries. I don't know how people want to play this. Do you want:
* One weekly summary of e
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 04:46:08PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> Would it be possible to make this summary subsribable, so I can drop my
> subscribtions to p6-internal?
To you, and to everyone else who has asked, yes. I'm working on setting
up a list right now, hosted at netthink. It's currently
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:11:33AM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the magic address;
>
> -digest has a specific meaning with many mailing list managers. I
> would suggest calling it perl6-summaries or such to avoid confusion.
Yuh, I thought of that the second after tell
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:05:57AM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
> document for the PDD process.
Uhm, you just turned meta-discussion into meta-meta-discussion, and you wonder
why people aren't commenting? :)
Seriously,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:10:53PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> o Will experiences from Ruby be assimilated back into Perl?
>
> o What impact will C# and .NET have on Perl 6? Don't forget
>Larry's required reading recommendation:
>http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:32:07PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > >How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
> > Sounds good to me.
> Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria?
There is an *expectation* that people will not file PPDs as PPDs unless
they have been agreed up
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
job done? I ask merely for information.
--
You are in a maze of little twisting passages,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> The current RFCs need work.
Be assured that they're getting lots of top-quality work.
> There are new RFCs that could be written. Its totally counter-productive to
... ship a specification to a designer, and then keep adding more
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:17:10PM +, David Grove wrote:
> > Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
> > job done?
>
> What was the question?
Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the job
done?
--
Do you associate ST JOHN'S wi
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:20:13AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> dramatic change in the name? Still Perl, but maybe Perl 7, Perl 10, Perl
> 2001, Perl NG, Perl* - heck, I don't know, I'm just trying to get the
> creati
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:06:59PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Maybe, but for one I'm starting to wonder. TomC's rant rang true in
> my ears. How much can we change and still call it the same language?
> I'm not yet panicking, I'm just trying to hug some firm ground here.
The Apocalypses
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
> and two commercial entities have so far accepted it: ActiveState and SuSE.
This is what seasoned David-Grove-watchers call "a complete, barefaced lie".
Who do you get your Perl from?
Red
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:41:09PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > Anywhere else? :)
> FreeBSD comes to mind, among others.
Hm. You initially restricted your survey to commercial vendors, but now
you are moving the goalposts.
> Can we get back to the subject now?
Certainly. The subject was whethe
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:19:16PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> With respect - and I do mean that - the subject as I started it was, Is
> "Perl 6" the most appropriate title for what we discuss here and what brave
> people like yourself will be implementing?
Peter,
Yes.
Simon
--
All the goo
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:15:09PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> "The general tendency is to over-design the second system, using all
> the ideas and frills that were cautiously sidetracked on the first
> one. The result ... is a 'big pile'."
> -- Fred Brooks Jr, "Th
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:22:04PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> This is quite a simple little script. The majority of the changes that are
> being talked about won't ever show up in this. It'd be nice if you could
> show something a little more complex.
The problem is that some people are
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:14:57AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> afraid of, and to express your concerns about it. However, the way that
> you chose to do that ("Once quick and dirty dies, Perl dies.") implies
> that the only thing that Perl is good for is q-n-d
A veritable lesson in logic! Here's
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
> modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
> and laid out around the central blob of "Basic Perl" that everyone
> knows (variables,
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:55:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
> Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
Bah. Rubbish, no more than you need to grok Unicode to use Perl 5.6.
Do you know what data of yours
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 06:58:03PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> A while ago Nathan wrote some more information about Perl6 and I
> finally got around to "modernize" the dev.perl.org site (so it uses
> mason and mod_perl now) and put it on.
Wow. Really cool. Thanks, Nat and Ask. One note: Bry
71 matches
Mail list logo
