Re: Please take RFC 179 discussion to -data
Jeremy Howard wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Could we please take discussion of 179 to -data? I think that's where > > > it should be. > > > > > > K. > > > > Personnally, I don't see any objection to this. > > If everybody is ok, why not ? > > > > How should I process ? Submit again the proposal with a modified > > mailing-list email ? > > > > Gael, > > Yes. > > If you do this, I suggest you take the opportunity to fill out RFC 179 with > more detail. In particular: > > - Why you think set operations should work on arrays rather than hashes > - In what way the current Set:: modules are insufficient > - Why set operations should be added to the core rather than a module > > That way the list will be able to understand the reasoning behind the RFC > better. Ok, I'm going to do this. But I'm quite busy at this time, so I'm going to try to do this on next friday (15th sept.) Gael,
Re: Please take RFC 179 discussion to -data
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Could we please take discussion of 179 to -data? I think that's where > > it should be. > > > > K. > > Personnally, I don't see any objection to this. > If everybody is ok, why not ? > > How should I process ? Submit again the proposal with a modified > mailing-list email ? > > Gael, Yes. If you do this, I suggest you take the opportunity to fill out RFC 179 with more detail. In particular: - Why you think set operations should work on arrays rather than hashes - In what way the current Set:: modules are insufficient - Why set operations should be added to the core rather than a module That way the list will be able to understand the reasoning behind the RFC better.
Re: Please take RFC 179 discussion to -data
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Could we please take discussion of 179 to -data? I think that's where > it should be. > > K. Personnally, I don't see any objection to this. If everybody is ok, why not ? How should I process ? Submit again the proposal with a modified mailing-list email ? Gael,
