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 works. I rather like it, and I expect once we get a working perl 6,
we
> probably won't need to freeze things either--worst case we mark a
proposed
> document irrelevant or something of the sort.
Well, there's also Meta stuff for discussion that we should probably
document as well. As much as I disliked RFC, I also disliked PDD, as it
'sounds' internal. But do we create a new category for every new area we
attempt to document, or do we change the name to reflect something more
generic? (The PDD has a Class field to distinguish between internals,
meta, and language already.)
If we go with mulitple documents, is the numbering scheme concurrent?
I'm also thinking heavily about change requests, and whether they should be
separate, or a stage beyond Standard. Pros and cons welcome.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
