Re: State of PDD 0

"Bryan C. Warnock" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, there's also Meta stuff for discussion that we should probably 
> document as well.  As much as I disliked RFC, I also disliked PDD, as it 
> 'sounds' internal.  But do we create a new category for every new area we 
> attempt to document, or do we change the name to reflect something more 
> generic?  (The PDD has a Class field to distinguish between internals, 
> meta, and language already.)
> 
> If we go with mulitple documents, is the numbering scheme concurrent?

Sounds good to me.

Also, if we go down the 'have a competition to see who can write the best
PDD on subject X' path, can we replace the 'TBD' in unnumbered PDDs
with a short string chosen by the author? This allows us to (hopefully)
unqiuely refer to a document during disussions, but when a final winner
is chosen and given a number, the offical library can still pretend the
losers never existed, unless people look in the 'losers' section.
EG
	PDD-dapm-GC
	
rather than

	PDD-TDB

for my attempt at garbage collection or whatever.