Re: Dylan stuff
Dustin Voss <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.dylan.gwydion.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:17 PM, mikel evins <[email protected]> wrote: > That raises another question: to what degree should Dylan hackers regard the language design as malleable? To whom does its definition belong nowadays? Is there a "Dylan Request for Implementation" process? Should there be? We have a process, documented at http://opendylan.org/proposals/index.html. And no one BUT us uses it, so we could consider it pretty malleable. However, I don’t like changing much in the language. It is pretty well-designed, and I don’t think we could do a better job of considering implications than the original designers. There are flaws. For example, <character> and its methods are poorly done, and limited collection types should include default fill: values and more introspection. But the fundamentals are sane, sound, and consistent. _______________________________________________ hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers