On Wed., Aug 16, 2000, Nate Wiger wrote:
> is good. Right now, people are hopping in 500 emails behind, replying to
> something in the middle of the stream, and only later reading the
> "please move this to -errors" post.
Actually, I'm 1283 emails behind, to be exact.
And that's just countin
>>-io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles
>>-subs = ALL sub/method/func issues, like lvalue subs
>>-strict = ALL lexical/global variable scoping issues
>>-objects = ALL OO and module issues
>>-flow = ALL flow/threading issues
>>-errors = ALL er
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 11:15:40PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>
>Sorry I didn't chime in earlier, but I would like to say that I prefer
>published deadlines. Reason: people will talk for as long as you give
>'em. However long a meeting is scheduled for, that's how long it will
>take. We're al
At 04:12 PM 8/17/00 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent
> >sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something
> >like:
> >
> > -io = ALL I/O issue
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent
>sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something
>like:
>
> -io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles
> -subs = ALL sub/method/
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:38:33PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> i see problems with overlapping areas. I/O callbacks fall under both io
> and flow IMO. some of the error handling like dying deep in eval and
> $SIG{DIE} also fall under error and flow.
This is true, and inevitable. But IMHO it'd b
> i see problems with overlapping areas. I/O callbacks fall under both io
> and flow IMO. some of the error handling like dying deep in eval and
> $SIG{DIE} also fall under error and flow.
True. But it should be up to the RFC author to choose the relevant list.
I think RFC authors have been prett
> "NW" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NW> I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent
NW> sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something
NW> like:
NW>-io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles
NW>-subs
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
>
> ... is the cause for this. All the discussion is taking place in the
> master list before the sublists are spawned. You can only express the
> opinion that foo is not bar and never should be so many times.
I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some perm
