>>>>> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> If the idea behind the RFC is good enough, not having time or tuits
MGS> should not be a problem, as its inherent err... "goodness" should
MGS> attract those who have time and tuits. Even if the RFC is marginal
MGS> but provocative, the resulting controversial discussion around it
MGS> should be easily nudged into creating prototypes. The rivals can be
MGS> asked to put their ideas into code and pit the two against each other.
We are not at that stage yet.
There are too many new things that are _supposed_ to interact to
bother with a prototype. It doesn't do any good, until the language
is nailed down.
You position is _perfectly_ and absolutely the only one that should be
taken _ONCE_ the p6 code base has firmed up and is past the feature
freeze phase.
Up until that point, it is wasted energy. At this point, without code
there is nothing locked down, no cost in changing. (Yes, even though
they are bits, changing software, changing architecture has major
costs.)
Lets work on firming up the specs and ironing out differences.
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
