Re: Initial Structure
[email protected] (John Porter)
| Newsgroups | perl.bootstrap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Andy Warhol^WWardley wrote:
> Perhaps also:
>
> - Intent (why make the change?)
> - Impact (what else might break?)
That is essentially the "Pro" and "Con" of the change as a whole.
So:
- Synopsis [brief description]
- Description [long]
- Pros ("Why do it?")
- Cons ("Why not?")
- Possible implementations:
1. - Description
- Pros
- Cons
...
n. - Description
- Pros
- Cons
Since the decision or concensus as to which implementation is the best
-- and indeed, whether the change should be made at all -- must come
from the public discourse, and may change over time, I suggest that
these things be not embedded in the RFC itself, but contained in some
kind of appendix.
--
John Porter
Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht.