On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:34:32PM -0600, Chris Fedde wrote: > It is my opinion that the FAQ exists to cover deficiencies in the existing > core manual.
Eh, no. FAQ stands for "Frequently Asked Questions". The FAQ was never intended to cover deficiencies. That would be counter productive. If there's a deficiency in the manual, the manual should be fixed. > I expect that the version 6 Perl manual pages will subsume > much of what is currently in the FAQ as either new pages, additional > examples, or clarification to feature descriptions. There's no perl6 yet. In half a year, Larry has produced 3 "apocalypses" - of the intended 30 or so (one for each chapter in the Camel). If this pace is being kept, the language specification for perl6 will not be finished for many years. Let alone that we will know how the FAQ or the documentation will look like. > I envision the FAQ for Perl6 will be a list of questions and > references to the correct part of the manual where the topic is > discussed in context. > > Comments? Speculation, and IMO, not really relevant. Let's focus on the current FAQ/documentation, not on what may or may not be the case of some version of perl in the future. Abigail
