Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about we do this to design the architecture and API:
>
> perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people. These
> people should have experience either with perl5 or with a similar
> system. Mail to this list goes to perl6-interna
Simon Cozens writes:
> As for me, I hate this "self-selection" thing because it forces me to be
> immodest. Oh well, better get used to it: Me. I think I'd be useful.
Excellent. Anyone else who wants to be part of the initial design
team, now is the time to speak up. If you have perl5 internals
Alan Burlison writes:
> seem a very optimal way to go about it. How about a design document
> (format to be decided) and a 'design + commentary' document which is the
> design document with the condensed email discussion inserted into it as
> the commentary. That way there is a design spec for t
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> * it's difficult for the design to happen through the questions
Is that really true? Have we tried? As far as I can tell we've got a
lot of well-intentioned people that for whatever reason are spending very
little time making Perl 6 happen.
Let
As another example of a process that seems to be working well (as far
as I can tell by being a lurker) check out the xml-dist-app mailing list
archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/
They have a draft up in the web [1] and the Subject lines directly
refer to such and such se
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:56:21AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How are you going to publish the design? Asking people to follow email
> discussions and try to piece together what is proposed from that doesn't
> seem a very optimal way to go about it. How about a design document
> (format to be
> I'm planning to write (in my copious free time) an
> open-source-licensed book on the implementation and design of Perl
> 6, which should capture for posterity the sense of the discussions
> we will have had while hammering out the design:
This reminds me of:
Hmm, doubtful. The source code ge
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:56:21AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about a design document (format to be decided) and a 'design +
> commentary' document which is the design document with the condensed email
> discussion inserted into it as the commentary. That way there is a design
> spec for
