On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:36, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Ok, fair enough. I think that perl should have a two-tiered process
though, and
> it should be ongoing and two tiered.
I may be slow, but I make mistakes.
Yes, I've changed my mind. I now think this is a good idea.
>
> Bryan Warnock
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.
> > RFC 362
> > ---
> ...
> > The RFC process should not have had an artificial deadline; it should be an
> > adaptive process that should last the entire development cycle of perl6 and
> > perhaps after.
>
> Should is a very dangerous word.
its a very useful word too sometimes... ;-)
>
Yikes!
Altough it does not appear in the text of RFC 141, your idea to
keep all topics open indefintely, and Get Everything Done Right
No Matter How Long It Takes were certainly talked about in September.
> RFC 362
> ---
...
> The RFC process should not have had an artificial deadline; i
- 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
C
At 01:36 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>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
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
> th
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 paused (and it is a pause, not a stop) is that we're waiting
for Larry
