Front page | perl.perl6.language.mlc |
Postings from August 2000
[originally posted on the general language list] From: "Larry Wall" <larry@wall.org> > John Porter writes: > : Michael Mathews wrote: > : > how shall I, as an RFC > Maintainer determine what that status is? > : > > : > Personally I don't want anything to do with judging the "status" of this > : > RFC, beyond my one voice. I do accept responsibility for compiling some > : > organized record of the responses I've received, but who shall decide > : > (before Larry decides)? > : > : You have to determine the status, but that shouldn't be scary, > : considering these RFCs are ultimately just recommendations for > : Larry's consideration. Since the broad concensus seems to have > : been that inline comments might be very useful, and not breaking > : anything else, the status could be "Good". > > As long as everyone realizes that I might reject a good many "Good" > things merely because if I accepted them all, Perl would become twice > as complicated as it is. Note in particular that multi-line comments > are something we *could* have added at any time, but chose not to. > This means you're gonna have to argue a little harder for it than you > would for something that wasn't possible before, but that we think > might become possible with the redesign. > > As I see it, given the proclivities of design-by-committee, my main job > at this point is to prevent feature bloat. There are various prongs to > this strategy. The obvious ones include culling "bad" features from > Perl 5, and limiting the introduction of marginal features into Perl 6. > > A less obvious strategy is to try to see where various marginal > features could be subsumed under some more powerful feature. To some > extent, you see this with the ability to use pod for multiline > comments. For embedded comments, we might rather see some kind of > macro facility that could turn qc// or any other quoted form into a > list of zero or more tokens. > > Larry >Thread Previous