develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2021

Re: RFC 0004 - defer {} syntax

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Nicholas Clark
June 19, 2021 09:36
Re: RFC 0004 - defer {} syntax
Message ID:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:16:19PM +0000, mah.kitteh via perl5-porters wrote:
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, June 17th, 2021 at 6:58 AM, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <> wrote:
> > Overall here I'm seeing a lot of feedback about the idea, but none
> >
> > really about the way I have documented it. I thought that was the point
> >
> > of this pre-RFC "just send an email" part of the process.
> >
> > Since folks are engaging with the substance of the document, I will
> Sounds like a good idea to me. I suppose I was wrong; seems this was actually a pre-RFC (was not clear so that needs to be a tweak in the process - I have been trying to follow along).

Right. So. You're on the money here. PSC thinks:

Start the process by mailing your "elevator pitch" to the list.

Specifically, send a short mail with 4 paragraphs that say:

1: Here is a problem
2: Here is the syntax that I'm proposing
3: Here are the benefits of this
4: Here are potential problems

(And if a "paragraph" is 1 sentence, great)

and that should be enough to make it obvious whether the idea is

0) worth drafting an RFC for
1) better on CPAN first
2) "nothing stops you putting it on CPAN, but it doesn't seem viable"

ie don't start out by taking the RFC template and attempting to fill it in.
Start with the summary above.

[for now this is e-mail, and to this list. Once we've got the process
bootstrapped, it might turn into an "issue" template for the RFC repository.
But not yet]

> Question for PSC: what's the indicator for submitting such a request? Could this have been done earlier in the "discussion"? What sort of discussions/comments are even appropriate for a pre-RFC? Seems to me as long as it's "well formed" and "high quality" the burden for creating a PR should be pretty low, since this is not the stage where the details I've been seeing in this thread are to be 'hashed out'.
> >
> > judge that I've got the first draft "about right", and therefore add it
> >
> > to the RFCs repo:
> >
> >
> So now I'll ask the RFC mediators; what's the next step here?

Um, well, technically the previous step was to mail the list with an idea,
which got skipped. (But I get why)

Also, according to my sketch of the "future" plans, that RFC draft should
have been an "Exploratory" RFC with a self-assigned ID. It shouldn't have
assumed that it would be 0004. (But I get why)

From this, I realise that "Draft" as a status name is a bad idea.
(Much like "Approved" isn't a name, to avoid confusion)

The status changes "Draft"/Provisional/Accepted/Implemented/Shipped/Stable
and what they stand for still makes sense - we just need a better name.

But, I was really pleased to read that RFC - Paul wrote an RFC that looks
like the style of document I was envisaging, with the right level of detail,
first time.

Until now I'd been the only person writing these things, so I didn't know if
we'd got the concept all wrong. It *might* still turn out that we have the
basic plan wrong, but right now it looks like it's still the right
direction, and it's more details that we need to iron out, not "redo from

Anyway, what happens *next* is that I do the editorial checks on his "draft"
and put it in the repository (along with some other fixes that need doing)
However, I'm running out of time, and might not get a chance to do this
until tomorrow morning, or maybe even Monday morning. (Sorry. Life)

Also, PSC think that the status is now "Provisional" - ie we got here:

                                mail p5p
                  better           |         rejected
                    on     <-------?------->   with
                   CPAN            |         reasoning
                               Draft RFC
                "we think this idea is worth exploring"
                (Help us figure out how this will work)
                             Provisional RFC
              "we think this idea is worth implementing"
              (We have a firm idea of what we want to do)

because we have a pretty firm idea of what we want to do.

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About