Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This seems a bit premature, given that we haven't actually come up with
> even a framework for an API, or hashed out much on the format of variables
> or the interpreter structure. (Nor the threading or event stuff...)
>
> Are you comfortable with a shorter term list (Say,two or four weeks) that
> will work up several different GC RFCs, based on various constraints? If
> so, I'm fine with it.
Sure, if that's your preference.
I guess, more than establishing a working group, I'm hoping to siphon
GC debates out of the more general internals list, since a lot of
people love discussing GC at great length, and I don't expect that
debate to have much relevance to the rest of the internals.
--
John Tobey, late nite hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
\\\ ///
]]] With enough bugs, all eyes are shallow. [[[
/// \\\
