On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski writes:
> > > I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> > actually
> > > want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
> > > 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implementation of
> > things.
> >
> >Ultimately, I think we're going to need at least three different
> >types of documentation:
> >
> > * internals design documents (PDDs)
> > * language design documents (PLDs?)
> > * change requests, once we've got something to change (PCRs)
>
> That works. I rather like it, and I expect once we get a working perl 6, we
> probably won't need to freeze things either--worst case we mark a proposed
> document irrelevant or something of the sort.
Well, how about calling 'Language Design Documents' "RFC's" ? After all, the
term RFC is a lot more generic; it can encorporate comments on *anything* perl
related.
Ed
