Peter Scott wrote:
>
> nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> that's why others can (or could) submit RFCs that contradict it, if they
> want to. The author is no more obliged to include opposing opinions in
> their RFC than the proposer of a bill in the House is required to include
> contrary views.
No, that's *wrong*. RFCs are written to help Larry review the issues,
and present some new ones. Much knowledge (for lack of better term)
comes out of the lengthy email discussions; we do him a great disservice
by not summarizing it in the relevant RFC. (Remember, the author of an
RFC is not simply its champion; he is called its "maintainer".) So it
would be better for Larry to see the arguments against a proposal in an
appendix of that RFC, than to have to hunt for other RFC's which might
contradict it. Not every harebrained RFC needs to be met by a
contradicting RFC. That leads (and has lead many times already) to RFC
bloat. RFCs like "330: Global dynamic variables should remain the
default" should not need to be written! (No disrespect to you, Nate.)
> the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
> process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and neither is
> the community - I hope. Larry is.
Uh, then why did Larry say "perl 5 was my rewrite, perl 6 is the
community's rewrite"? Clearly he does not think of himself as the
community. He has said it: this is *our* rewrite.
--
John Porter
By pressing down a special key It plays a little melody
