At 02:24 PM 2/22/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > No. Please don't, and save me the trouble of having to reject them. I'd
> > rather not do that.
>
>Exactly my point. There is no recourse that is given to me, or a lot of other
>people for that matter.
Well, there's always the implementation. Granted, it's the messy, nasty
side of things, but it is the area we're presently working in. Knowledge of
C is *not* required either--just because that's what the current pieces up
for discussion are written or going to be written in doesn't mean we can't
open things up more. A good chunk of perl 6's internals will be extendable
via perl.
>And like I said, my time is variable, and the time that I have to devote to
>design/implementation of perl is limited may or may not follow Larry's
>schedule.
>
>So I'll leave it up to you - what venue/recourse/means do I have for
>submitting new ideas for review?
>
>And please don't say via mailing list because submitting new ideas via
>mailing list is absolutely pointless.
Then at the moment you don't really have one. If that's a problem, then I'm
sorry.
>I'd rather write them semi-formally, catalog them, get input on them while
>they are still hot, and have them archived somewhere. seems the most
>productive thing for me to do...
I'm not entirely sure about that. Writing proposal documents that build on
a foundation that doesn't actually exist may not be the most productive use
of your time. It would really suck to spend days on something that turns
out to be unimplementable or meaningless because the design decisions it
was based on were faulty.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
