develooper Front page | | Postings from September 2000

Fw: Wrapup time

Thread Next
Jeremy Howard
September 12, 2000 23:06
Fw: Wrapup time
Message ID:
<Forwarded from perl6-meta>

Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Larry's going to release a draft of his langauge decisions on the 1st
> of October.
> My plan to prevent a flood of 100 new RFCs on September 30:
>  - deadline for new RFCs of Sep 25.  After that, only discussion of
>    old ones.
>  - send mail to existing authors of "developing" RFCs telling them
>    this
Given that Larry is making decisions in 2.5 weeks, I figure that we've got 1
week to clarify our RFCs (so Larry has some time to digest them). Here's
some thoughts about where our RFCs stand:

  115: Change motivation to better recognise RFC 205. Motivation should
probably more generic. Consider incorporating into RFC 159.

  116: Refocus. Remove sections that are now served by the array RFCs.
Separately RFC anything missing. Make the RFC an informative RFC about how
PDL solves implementation problems

  169: Withdraw

  204: Clarify behaviour when specifying less indexes than there are
dimensions. Clarify relationship between $a[$i] and @a[[$i]] on lists of

  207: Decide whether we really want this. If so, add a motivation section
as to what we're really winning. Define the width of the loop, and clarify
its behaviour. Resolve whether we want |i notation or $INDEX::i notation

  82: Summarise argument against RFC 45

  90/91: Resolve whether alias or copy returned. Clarify how recursion
avoided, if alias returned

  148: Change to Numeric Python semantics of reshape(), or write counter-RFC
specifying these semantics (preferably renaming this RFC's 'reshape' to
something else)

  New: transpose (or similar); ufuncs (like in NumPy)

I'm happy to work on 204, 82, 90/91, and 148 (Nate--I don't think we've
resolved this one yet...). I think Buddha is best placed to do 169 (easy!)
and 207 (Buddha--I think it's mainly a case of summarising the emails you
and I have recently written about this). Can someone volunteer to look at
115 and 116?

Any other changes or new RFCs we need? Have a look through any
PDL/NumPy/whatever code you've got lying around, and see if there's anything
that our proposed Perl can't handle nicely. Feel free to post any such code
and ask for suggestions about we could implement these bits.

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