Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from August 2000
skud@netizen.com.au writes: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 03:04:08PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > >I think this is a good candidate for recording why we decided not to do > >something. > > > >Did we even reach consensus on how to do this? Put a Status: header in > >VERSION? > > > >For recording purposes, maybe once the Status: line is added we should > >add an additional section. Maybe STATUS, JUSTIFICATION, POSTMORTEM, or > >something else, that can just have a one-paragraph explanation, like: > > > >=head1 STATUS > > > >Consensus has been reached that filehandles will be represented as > >scalars or objects in scalars (C<$fh>) everywhere. Therefore, there is > >no need to make a new type out of them. This RFC has been withdrawn. > > I like this solution a lot. Gnat, can we implement it, since there is > now an active need for it? So the plan is that only when an RFC is dead, the author will put in a STATUS section saying why? I'm happy with that. I'll update the RFC format on Saturday. My current thinking about the status field, by the way, is to have three possible values: developing, frozen, retracted. Any problems with that? If not, I'll make a decision by Monday. NatThread Next