Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

2000-09-21 Thread Andy Dougherty
uch effort on making it easy to build incomplete perl installations. There are too many other important problems. -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Physics Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042

Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

2000-09-21 Thread Andy Dougherty
d start towards spelling them out more carefully. That is a quite welcome development. You might also want to comment explicitly on the SDK and the balance between more modules in the standard library and more effort on developing an SDK. Then again, you might not prefer to go there :-).

Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

2000-09-20 Thread Andy Dougherty
doesn't include the documentation. I don't imagine that will change in perl6. -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Physics Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042

Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

2000-09-19 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Curtis Jewell wrote: > (SE), AFAIK, and therefore the man pages should be an option that could be > deleted to save space. This is already an option, and has been for years. I don't imagine that would change in perl6. -- Andy Dougherty [EMAI

Re: RFC 216 (v1) POD should tolerate white space.

2000-09-13 Thread Andy Dougherty
rely there's an RFC on that somewhere.) Once either of those solutions is implemented, then then it's a simple matter for pod tools using it instead of $/ (or whatever). Since you made this proposal, would you be willing to pursue either of these options further? -- Andy Do