On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:10:12 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:11:56AM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
My critique of the Perl 6 RFC process and following discussion is now
available at
http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
Agree 100% to every point.
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Some sort of SGI megaserver, dunno MHz, but load is high (more than
five times the number of CPUs...), so the following numbers are a tad slow,
but I guess relatively right:
-O3 none
switch 7.027.70
orig16.59
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:18:01AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
Coming from someone whoe probably wrote more RFC's than anyone else (I
count 33), I find that pretty ironic.
I had to inject some sense into the process somehow.
--
Morton's Law:
If rats are experimented upon, they will
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
rather less polite about things.
I think that's what they call a "false memory".
Hi folks,
I know, the RFC period is over, but still...
Please, read this through and tell me if it's a good idea or not.
Actually, it's not mine, I just wrote it down. But see for yourself...
Roland
--snip--
=head1 TITLE
Perl should support non-linear text.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:52:45AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Some sort of SGI megaserver, dunno MHz, but load is high (more than
five times the number of CPUs...), so the following numbers are a tad slow,
but I guess relatively right:
-O3
One more random credo I just made up:
By the time you add the seventeeth argument/member/field/function
to your function/struct/class/API you should start seriously
suspecting that maybe your API needs a rethink.
(For the first three, rethinking at five elements
Anyone think others are needed?
"Myopia neither equates the absence of existence of a distant object, nor
demonstrates the insanity of the non-myopic."
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
David Grove wrote:
"Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
Maybe; but that doesn't apply to non-issues being paraded as issues.
--
John Porter
At 04:41 PM 11/3/00 +, David Grove wrote:
Anyone think others are needed?
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
I'd lump that in with act professionally, though in general issues do need
direct addressing.
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
voices during the RFC process.
Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to tell people on more
than one occasion to grow up and behave like
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispere
d:
| On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
| Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
| generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p
Comparing the perl6-language and the perl5-porters simply doesn't fly.
It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing
a busy market place and a faculty lunch.
In the first case we are talking about a crowd of people most of which
do not know each other, do not know what the
At 09:30 PM 11/3/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
voices during the RFC process.
Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to tell people on
Ok,
Iv'e seen this debate - I will try to put something constructive:-
Richard
=Head1 My opinions of the Perl6 RFC process
=head2 Where do I come from this?
I am an amauteur perl user who uses it on web sites and for other admin
tasks. Have I looked at the code? - Yes. Do I know the
Anyone think others are needed?
"Stick to the subject."
Perhaps another point of view will help. I'm the maintainer of
RFC 88: Omnibus Structured Exception/Error Handling Mechanism
(as at http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/88.html).
My experience of the RFC process was good to very-good; some would
rate the process fair to good. I don't think it deserves
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:42:34AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
rather less polite
18 matches
Mail list logo
