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

Re: RFC 0004 - defer {} syntax

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
June 23, 2021 06:00
Subject:
Re: RFC 0004 - defer {} syntax
Message ID:
20210623060028.GI11066@etla.org
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:15:40PM +0100, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans wrote:
> Here's an RFC formalization of my currently-open github feature issue:

Thanks.

>   https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/17949
> 
> which was itself an issue tracking the previous mailing list
> conversation:
> 
>   https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2020/06/msg257611.html
> 
> If we accept this one into the RFC process, I'll likely close the
> github issue and point at the RFC instead.
> 
> ---
> 
> # defer {} syntax
> 
> ## Preämble

The intent was that this section is machine parseable.

Technically this is the new PSC's call now, but

I know that you like diaereses, and I get that this spelling makes it clear
that it's two vowel sounds, but

* I don't mind what the section header is
* I didn't want it to have an ambiguous name
* I didn't want to unify on a name that isn't the common spelling

I can't find anywhere that suggests "preämble" as an alternative spelling.
eg

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/preamble

(interestingly they have coordinate as "(also mainly UK co-ordinate)":
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coordinate

Even newyorker.com is using preamble, and, well, they send themselves up
about diaereses:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis

So can we pick a different header name for this section that has one
unambiguous spelling, that is all ASCII? "Metadata" would do.

>     Author:  Paul Evans <PEVANS>
>     Sponsor:
>     ID:      0004

Technically according to the plan an RFC doesn't get an official ID until it
is accepted into the process. Right now things are slow enough that it
didn't matter.

>     Status:  Draft

I realised that everyone keeps talking about "Draft" RFCs when they are
drafting an RFC (well, d'oh) whereas the intent was that the is a clear
status that was "not yet accepted". So...

I swapped the names for the status of the first step, and for "not yet
accepted. "Exploratory" is now the first step in the repository, and "Draft"
is what comes before. So that "Status" line is retrospectively correct.

The status is now also "Provisional" because the outgoing PSC were pretty
confident "we think that this idea is worth implementing"


I've pushed a large update to the RFC repository that brings your RFC in.

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About