At 11:12 PM 12/5/00 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of the suggestions that have been advanced so far, four are worthy of
> > more consideration: C, C++, Java and a specially-designed Perl
> > Implementation Language. (PIL)
>
> > Java is portable and giv
Bennett Todd writes:
> Would you accept a restatement of: as long as whatever it is can be
> translated into a common format, we can work with it, and the
> composition of the actual words is far more important than niggling
> over choices in preferred markup style?
Sure, but that begs the questi
Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > Java is portable and gives us OO, but it's slow and ugly.
>
> I am probably the biggest proponent of the "use Java to implement Perl"
> camp.
Java is only somewhat portable.
> One concern that I have about the data structure design thus far (and I
> believe I wrote a
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patches welcome.
Well, this isn't a patch, but if you really meant patches literally and not
figuratively, I can provide one if you let me know. ;)
> Of the suggestions that have been advanced so far, four are worthy of
> more consideration: C, C++, J
Patches welcome.
=head1 Introduction
This is not a design document; it's a meta-design document - that is, it
tells us what things we need to design, the things we need to consider
during the design process of the Perl 6 internals.
It's completely unofficial, it's completely my opinion, it's me
2000-12-05-13:02:56 Nathan Torkington:
> I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to
> choose what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable
> webpages out of it, that person can write on a Commodore 64 for
> all I care.
Would you accept a restatement of: as long as wh
Simon Cozens writes:
> Yes, we should really postpone the inevitable markup language war until
> we have something to mark up.
You channeled my very thoughts, Simon.
I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to choose
what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable web
> "BMK" == Bradley M Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BMK> If we do this, please also make
BMK> or something like that, which is a list that simply redistributes
BMK> mail from to its subscribers. In other
BMK> words, only post would go there, but no
BMK> subscriber could post.
Just be c
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about writing the documents in XML and having a 'perl specification'
> DTD?
> ...
> Death to POD!
Can we *please* not re-fight this war? I know you remember the last
couple incarnations of XML VS POD. Just replay them in your mind and
enjoy the sh
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:23:46AM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:20:29AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > > I still think that with the correct
> > > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
> >
> > DocB
Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I still think that with the correct
> > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
>
> DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
Yak! no. DocBook is for specifying published document layout and is
pretty huge - far too weighty for what we want. I'm th
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:23:46AM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> As someone who had the option of writing a book in DocBook or POD
> I can tell you that it simply would not have happened in DocBook.
Horses for courses. My next book is going to be in DocBook, and I
do a bunch of documentation in it e
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:20:29AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > I still think that with the correct
> > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
>
> DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
As someone who ha
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I still think that with the correct
> DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
-- Aldous Huxle
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> Say What?
>
Say XML - ex em ell :-)
> We need a better POD, not a cumbersome machine-to-machine interchange
> format for writing docs.
The main problem with POD is that we have to write the tools to do
anything with it. Witness the endless hacking/cursing/hacking/curs
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:21:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about writing the documents in XML and having a 'perl specification'
> DTD? With a bit of careful thought we will be able to do all sorts of
> interesting stuff - for example if we tag function definitions we can
> start cross-c
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> 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. T
-- Adam Turoff wrote:
> Are you asking for a Design Document (tm) to be published/updated
> along with an Annotated Design Document (tm)? Sounds like what Tim
> Bray did for the XML Spec at http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm.
Wow - I hadn't seen that - neat. I expect this was generated by wr
18 matches
Mail list logo
