On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:58:03PM -0500, Bryan C . Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 20:32, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > For example, I doubt that we want or need three competing PDDs on
> > Async I/O developing in the Standard track, but multiple PDDs on
> > the same topic would be welcome if they were Experimental (or even
> > Informational).
>
> The idea, unlike the RFC process, wasn't that PDDs were to lead the
> discussion. A PDD proposal was more or less a checkpoint in the
> development process.
PDDs, like the RFCs that preceded them, will need to serve multiple
purposes. One of them will be to catalog (and *name*) ideas that
keep coming up, including the bad ideas (like the |||= operator)
that we're tired of discussing. I don't think anyone expects each
of N PDDs to get us 1/Nth closer to Perl6.
Some PDDs, especially Informational and possibly Experimental,
might need to precede knowledgeable discussion. If so, then
Standards-track need to have the requirement that they summarize
some amount of discussion on the list(s), and that requirement is
enforcable (i.e., no PDDs out of left field).
That's a good idea, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's the
only one, the fairest one or the most practical one.
Z.
