On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:11:27PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
> > I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
> > actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
>
> In preparation for the end-run of RFCing, how about we compile a lis
Chaim Frenkel writes:
> 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.
That's no argument against prototyping, though. Prototype one feature
and then you
Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
> I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
> actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
In preparation for the end-run of RFCing, how about we compile a list
of "developing" RFCs that haven't been touched in more than a week,
and con
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:44:38PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Schwern wrote:
> > Seperating the men from the boys.
>
> I'll just go get my detachable penis :)
That's easily solved with the Tie::Penis module.
--
Michael G Schwern http:/
Schwern wrote:
> Seperating the men from the boys.
I'll just go get my detachable penis :)
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne V
> RFC - Prototype RFC Implementations - Seperating the men from the boys.
Feh.
Scuse me while I find my detachable penis.
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3
> Bad reasons
> I do not have time.
> I do not have the tuits.
I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 05:38:59PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Maybe ALL of p6 should be prototyped using one giant filter?
That would be basically what the p52p6 translator will be.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 05:30:01PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> We are not at that stage yet.
We're so far into that stage that its starting to rot. We have 209
seperate feature ideas. That's plenty to start getting serious.
Just because we start thinking seriously about implementation detai
At 05:30 PM 9/11/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>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.)
Don't forget that changing archi
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> -*> SOURCE FILTERS <<<
Oh, yes. Damn. I forgot about filters. :-( Sorry, one and all.
Maybe ALL of p6 should be prototyped using one giant filter?
--
John Porter
> "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 provocativ
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:38:01PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> You have not addressed my (and I suspect many others') greatest concern:
> I am not a p5 hacker; nor am I a p6 hacker by dint of the fact that p6 does
> not yet exist. Can I write the prototype in pseudocode? Or should I be
> buildin
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> The main thing I wish to accomplish here is to change the prevailing
> attitude from "write an RFC and maybe something will come of it" to
> "write an RFC and make sure something comes of it." Move the ball
> down the field.
Eminently reasonable.
> I wish to make
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:06:49PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Its all flexible. I forgot to put my usual "there will be exceptions"
> > clause into the RFC.
>
> If I'm allowed to interpret it to mean "There IS no Rule #6",
> then everything's dandy.
The main thing
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:29:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > No. You can not oblige the RFC maintainer to write the prototype or
> > cat-herd someone else into it. The vast majority of RFC authors
> > (myself included) would simply not be up to such an order.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:29:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> No. You can not oblige the RFC maintainer to write the prototype or
> cat-herd someone else into it. The vast majority of RFC authors
> (myself included) would simply not be up to such an order.
>
> Instead, it should be the WG lead
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >
> > At this point, I think this is too strong. My understanding of Larry's
> > intention is that we are now brainstorming. Brainstorming can not work
> > if folks will pre-filter their ideas. Part of the effect is a half-baked
> > idea on anothe
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 12:57:47AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MGS> =head1 ABSTRACT
>
> MGS> RFCs should be followed by a prototype implementation of their
> MGS> proposal which provides something concrete to develop the RFC from
> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> =head1 ABSTRACT
MGS> RFCs should be followed by a prototype implementation of their
MGS> proposal which provides something concrete to develop the RFC from and
MGS> helps to avoid endless discussion.
At this point, I think this i
I've an idea to cut down and weed out the huge number of RFCs we have.
Its written out below.
=pod
=head1 TITLE
Prototype implementations for RFCs.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Sep 4 21:11:56 EDT 2000
Version:1
Mailing Lis
21 matches
Mail list logo
