Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> These 13 ( 8%) had very brief IMPLEMENTATION sections that
> didn't contain any substantive discussion.
>
> These 21 (13%) contained remarks about the author's ignorance.
>
> These 15 ( 9%) had no IMPLEMENTATION section at all.
The distinction between these three cases is arbitrary and trivial,
being as they are more a reflection of the authors' tastes.
> RFCs: 97 100
>
> These 2 ( 1%) said that implementation discussion was beyond
> the scope of the RFC, which I don't understand, since it
> clearly *is* part of the scope of the RFC.
>
> RFCs: 7 16 33 34 68 74 76 77 91 94 102 107 114 118 121 144
>
> These 16 (10%) said something along the lines of "The
> implementation should be straightforward." I did not try to
> judge whether this was actually true.
I wish you had applied the standard more evenly; imho, 97 & 100 had
good reasons for their cursory treatments of implementation.
> Not everyone knows enough about Perl's internal design or about
> programming design generally to be able to consider the issues. I
> suggest that these people should write to the approrpriate working
> group chair and ask to be put in touch with someone who can help them
> with the internals sections of their RFC.
I respectfully register my dissenting opinion.
It's what "RFC" means.
However, the status of each RFC ought to be shown on the main RFC index;
and withdrawn (or otherwise euthanized) RFCs should be removed from thence,
perhaps to another, archival page.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
