On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:41:22PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > 1) The RFC was a free-for-all brainstorming process. Intentionally.
>
> right, and your point is that brainstorming should cease(?)
Yes. Everyone (else) seems to agree that Larry has a tough enough
job to do right now without increasing his workload by extending
the RFC process.
> yeah, and there are not nearly enough of these 'features', 'comments', 'what
> have you' available. There is a *lot more to say* in this type of forum.
That's one opinion.
> > 3) The RFC process was designed to be a limited call for ideas for Larry
> > to consider in a language design. The deadline was integral to the
> > process, and decided before RFC collection began.
>
> right.. and like I said, I don't understand the 'limited' part.
That doesn't sound like a compelling case to unlimit the process.
Perl6 isn't a never-ending RFC gathering exercise. It's a community
rewrite of Perl.
> Exactly... and your point is that 'the number of things that perl6 which Perl
> could or should become' is now fixed in stone?
That statement significantly misrepresents and underestimates the
nature of Perl. Perl4 and Perl5 were not fixed in stone, and they both
went into interesting unforseen directions (including tkperl/oraperl and
Inline/Perligata, respectively).
Perl6 will not be set in stone, either, but the baseline needs to be
complete enough to accomodate current needs and desires, and flexible
enough to invent the rest.
Z.
