At 12:43 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > >It would be bad to have multiple RFCs suggesting the same thing.
> >
> > Nope, it wouldn't be.
> >
> > Don't assume that any particular RFC will be accepted in its entirety
> > either--it's always possible that Larry'll take the good bits and leave the
> > rest...
>
>Meanwhile we all go rambling around on cross-threads and come up
>with no coherent set of proposals.
So? If the idea has merit, it'll make it into one or more RFCs, and Larry's
rather good at making things coherent. If it just putters around for a
while on the list, then maybe it's really not worth all that much.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
- Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Buddha Buck
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicin... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and sl... Karl Glazebrook
- Access to the perl6 parser Dan Sugalski
- Access to the perl6 parser Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Christian Soeller
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Jim Edwards
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexi... Christian Soeller
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Karl Glazebrook
