Re: State of PDD 0

On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:30, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will 
there
> > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> >
> >I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list.  Dan?
> 
> I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might 
actually 
> want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for 
> 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implementation of 
things.

I'm not particularly fond of an internal/external delineation, but I'm not 
adverse to RFCs being generated as they were before - to initiate 
discussion.  If nothing else, it would make the transition to an actual PDD 
easier.

-- 
Bryan C. Warnock
[email protected]