Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Daniel Chetlin
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:15:25PM +1100, iain truskett wrote: > * Daniel Chetlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [29 Sep 2000 14:10]: > > My RFC is predicated on the notion that perl5 will look enough like > > perl6 that we won't have to rewrite all of the docs, and thus > > there's plenty to be done as of n

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread iain truskett
* Daniel Chetlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [29 Sep 2000 14:10]: [...] > My RFC is predicated on the notion that perl5 will look enough like > perl6 that we won't have to rewrite all of the docs, and thus there's > plenty to be done as of now. With all of these people flurrying about > in excitement abo

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Daniel Chetlin
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:04:47PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > > > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint. > > > > My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 re

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 07:56 PM 9/28/00 -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote: >On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint. > >My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be >much of an interest. I was trying to decide today w

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Adam Turoff
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint. > > My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be > much of an interest. I was tryin

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Daniel Chetlin
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint. My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be much of an interest. I was trying to decide today whether I should freeze or withdraw. -dlc

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Adam Turoff
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:01:06PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: > > "Stephen" == Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stephen> Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his > Stephen> misinterpretation of Larry's plans but said he still > Stephen> planned to lean on peopl

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Stephen Zander
> "Stephen" == Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephen> Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his Stephen> misinterpretation of Larry's plans but said he still Stephen> planned to lean on people to finish by October 1 Stephen> otherwise they'd never get done.

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Simon Cozens
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:54:36PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: > Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his misinterpretation of > Larry's plans but said he still planned to lean on people to finish by > October 1 otherwise they'd never get done. Yuh, I just realised that the bulk of the on

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Stephen Zander
> "Simon" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Simon> Hm. So this means there's no point me submitting anything Simon> now, because it's not going to have time to be discussed Simon> and frozen? G-r-reat. Not necessarily. Nat recently posted about his misinterpretation of

Re: *REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Simon Cozens
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:11:13PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > Remember: Oct 1st is a true deadline, coming from the powers above, > meaning if your RFC is not frozen by then, it will be auto-retracted > and not considered. Hm. So this means there's no point me submitting anything now, because

*REALLY*, it's getting close here...

2000-09-28 Thread Nathan Wiger
We've only got 4 days left until the One True Deadline on this whole thing. Please, go check this out: http://dev.perl.org/rfc/overdue-perl6-language-objects.html And get your RFC's finished up. Remember: Oct 1st is a true deadline, coming from the powers above, meaning if your RFC is not frozen