Steve Simmons writes:
> This idea is both important and more general. If we go thru a huge
> discussion of, say, multi-line comments and decide *not* to do it,
> we don't want to have the whole thing repeated with perl 6.1, 7.0,
> etc, etc. When something reaches RFC stage but is rejected, part of
> the process should include archiving the gist of the arguements for
> and against. IMHO the RFC editor should be responsible for this.
IMHO someone should write an RFC on why perl6 should NOT have
comments. The RFC editor doesn't have time to follow these zillions
of discussions and write documents based on them.
Nat
RFC,PCR,PHB,whatever :-)
