It's time for the XML vs POD discussion to end. The RFCs are in
limbo now, and this conversation is serving no visible purpose.
Thanks,
Nat
Simon Cozens wrote:
> (Incidentally, has anyone noticed that John Porter and I appear to have
> *completely* different opinions about *everything*?)
Good thing you're both on the committee...
O O
<
\/
--
Glenn
=
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you j
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:53:00PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> May I point out that "the camel was designed by committee"*, too?
The camel was certainly not, and this Camel isn't going to be either.[1]
> Really, I'd like to see this Designed By Committee Considered Harmful
> myth put to rest.
I
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> 'rewrite' is not the same as 'design', fortunately. I fervently hope that
> the language design will be the product only of ideas Larry either came up
> with or agreed with; if we get into some voting scenario, that spells
> doom. May I point out that COBOL was designe
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:08:00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>May I point out that COBOL was designed by a committee.
That ain't bad enough.
Let me point out that we don't need another Ada or PL/1.
--
Bart.
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> bits of both systems so it all can be wedged into perl. I'd really
DS> like to incorporate the good bits of VMS' async I/O and event
DS> handling into perl, for example.
hear! hear! as the author/maintainer of the event loop and
as
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> > would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> > is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE.
At 06:40 PM 10/5/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:38:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
> > the community's rewrite. (The alternative is to have the thing be *my*
> > rewrite, and I don't think we w
At 11:08 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Scott wrote:
>> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
>> > > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>
> > Peter Scott wrote:
> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
> > > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
> neither is
> > > the community - I hope. Larry
Philip Newton wrote:
> If the pod (or whatever) is in a
> separate file, this advantage is lost.
Of course; I'd *never* say that there should be NO documentation
in the perl code file. That would be absurd.
--
John Porter
By pressing down a special key It plays a little melody
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:38:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
> the community's rewrite. (The alternative is to have the thing be *my*
> rewrite, and I don't think we want that... :)
Will no preprocessor symbols defined the
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:17:27PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> RFCs are written to help Larry review the issues,
> and present some new ones. [...]
RFCs are part of our community library.
All of the summarization that is done in the RFC process is done
for our fearless leader, as well as for th
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
> Peter Scott wrote:
> > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
> > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and neither is
> > the community - I hope. Larry is.
>
> Uh, then why did Larry say "perl 5 was my rewrite
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 04 Oct 2000 18:43:43 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>
> >POD is not suitable for producing books. It can be used, however, to
> >provide the information that a (human) typesetter can turn into a
> >printed book.
>
> If a typesetter knows enough with ju
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> that's why others can (or could) submit RFCs that contradict it, if they
> want to. The author is no more obliged to include opposing opinions in
> their RFC than the proposer of a bill in the House
Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> > would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> > is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE. There's no reason you can't have
> > docum
On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
> I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE. There's no reason you can't have
> document files accompanying the perl
18 matches
Mail list logo
