"Clinton A. Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most of the discussion in p6i goes right over my head, but I'm
> certainly enjoying the fruits of their labors.
Huge amounts of it go over my head too, which means I'm never *quite*
sure whether I've got the salient points in my summaries.
--
Pie
At 08:07 PM 8/21/2002 +0100, Ximon Eighteen wrote:
> You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
> Personally I've been a little disappointed
> in the involvement(interest) of late.
>
> -Melvin
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like myself. I
only wish I had the time & expe
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Mark Koopman wrote:
> > I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like
> > myself. I only wish I had the time & experience/skill/knowledge to
> > contribute.
> >
> > Keep up the good work.
Lurker honk, agreement. :)
R.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
> >discussions public?
I'd like to dispel rumors of a vast off-list conspiracy. I've been taking
and discussing patches to languages/perl6 from a couple of people (hi,
Leo) off-list,
At 2:35 PM -0400 8/21/02, John Porter wrote:
>Angel Faus wrote:
>> I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
>> compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
>
>I wonder if maybe perl6-internals should have been named parrot, anyway.
That would've required a bit of time-travel
>> You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
>> Personally I've been a little disappointed
>> in the involvement(interest) of late.
>>
>> -Melvin
>
> I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like
> myself. I only wish I had the time & experience/skill/knowledge to
> contribute.
>
> You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
> Personally I've been a little disappointed
> in the involvement(interest) of late.
>
> -Melvin
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like myself. I
only wish I had the time & experience/skill/knowledge to contribute.
Keep up the
Angel Faus wrote:
> I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
> compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
I wonder if maybe perl6-internals should have been named parrot, anyway.
By being less overtly perl-centric, and thus more HLL-neutral, we could
have gotten more direc
At 8:05 PM +0200 8/21/02, Angel Faus wrote:
> >
>> Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
>> time someone suggested making a separate
>> list for Parrot compilers, so I took it as
>> a hint that maybe we were spamming.
>>
>
>I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and
>
> Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
> time someone suggested making a separate
> list for Parrot compilers, so I took it as
> a hint that maybe we were spamming.
>
I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
So people interes
>Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
>discussions public? languages/imcc and languages/perl6 are very major
>components, and they have been very little discussed on-list. imcc
Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
time someone suggested making a separate
list for Pa
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:05:57AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
>
> Sean, I'm replying publicly because I'd like to hear other opinions than
> mine, yours, Angel's and Leopold's.
Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
discussions public? languages/imcc and languages/perl6
12 matches
Mail list logo
