Mailing List Archive

thank you (was Re: {RFC} Should we "cancel" Perl 7?)
Thank you, this is fair. I am going to put a cap on my portion of this
and stand out of the way. Unlike perl, I have a hard time at this but it
is time since I have nothing more to add after this post.

Over the course of however long I've been on my spate, I have explored
several areas or ideas.

* SMP perl
* perl as a uniprocess for language and feature ideas, solutions
* runtime support to make it easier for inherently multiprocess
semantics achieve a guarantee of sequential consistency
* a humane and kind new feature pathway that does not "salt the earth"
* leveraging of prototypes to enable easy exploration of new infix,
postfix, circumfix, etc operators that integrate natively as prototypes
allow (on a high level)
* and the final one, the subject of this thread (for good or ill)

My final thought is regarding prototypes versus signatures. In [0], Tom
Christiansen's concludes with this:


I was `astonished` to have read this, getting all the way through this
manuscript. But nonetheless, it may provide some clues to a way forward
that simultaneously enables:

* sane and accessible feature exploration via CPAN->dual life
* an opportunity to meld the fantastic of prototypes for some things
with the goals of signatures [.can there be something that enables
"context templates for implicit coercions" with the support for
interesting semantics with the clear need that signatures seeks to solve?]

I'll be around, but putting my $$ where my fingers have been.

Thank you and this dude abides,
Brett

~~~~~~~~~~~
0. https://perlmonks.org/?node_id=861966


On 4/14/21 1:08 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:58:42AM -0500, B. Estrade wrote:
>> I feel like this is an obvious question. This is painful yes, but the trauma
>> I see coming along our current path is far, far worse.
>
> No.
>
> You are very wrong.
>
> 1) It is the remit of the steering committee to decide this. *
> 2) They have just decided a plan (I believe unanimously) as described here:
>
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2021/04/msg259789.html
>
> This plan stands.
>
> It should be obvious that this plan stands, as it was approved unanimously,
> and 2 of the 3 people who created it remain in their positions.
>
> I am not on the steering committee, but I am standing in the election to
> fill the vacant third seat for the rest of this "term" (which ends once
> perl 5.34.0 is released). Strictly "what would I do on this?" is not covered
> by my manifesto** but I am happy to go on the record and say that if I am
> elected to the committee I will back this plan, and not seek to re-litigate
> what has already been resolved.
>
> Until there is material change in circumstances, it's a waste of everyone's
> time to keep talking about things that have been decided.
>
> Nicholas Clark
>
> * https://github.com/Perl/perl5/blob/blead/pod/perlgov.pod
> ** See https://perl.topicbox.com/groups/perl-core/T5807c06f2255d0f0-Md815f6b12a3a0622fd418e8b
>
Re: thank you (was Re: {RFC} Should we "cancel" Perl 7?) [ In reply to ]
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54 PM, B. Estrade <brett@cpanel.net> wrote:

> Thank you, this is fair. I am going to put a cap on my portion of this
> and stand out of the way. Unlike perl, I have a hard time at this but it
> is time since I have nothing more to add after this post.
>
> Over the course of however long I've been on my spate, I have explored
> several areas or ideas.
>
> - SMP perl
> - perl as a uniprocess for language and feature ideas, solutions
> - runtime support to make it easier for inherently multiprocess
> semantics achieve a guarantee of sequential consistency
>
> - a humane and kind new feature pathway that does not "salt the earth"
> - leveraging of prototypes to enable easy exploration of new infix,
> postfix, circumfix, etc operators that integrate natively as prototypes
> allow (on a high level)
>
> - and the final one, the subject of this thread (for good or ill)
>
> My final thought is regarding prototypes versus signatures. In [0], Tom
> Christiansen's concludes with this:
>
> tc> My conclusion is that just adding names to Perl's
>
>
> tc> existing ``prototypes'', which are really mostly
> tc> just parameter context templates for implicit coercions,
> tc> would be a mistake. It would encourage the use of something
> tc> that's extremely confusing at best, and at worst,
> tc> fundamentally broken by design. This document is really
> tc> called Prototypes Considered Harmful, but I don't think
> tc> you would have believed me if I had said that right at
> tc> the start.
>
> I was`astonished` to have read this, getting all the way through this
> manuscript. But nonetheless, it may provide some clues to a way forward
> that simultaneously enables:
>
> - sane and accessible feature exploration via CPAN->dual life
>
> - an opportunity to meld the fantastic of prototypes for some things
> with the goals of signatures [.can there be something that enables
> "context templates for implicit coercions" with the support for
> interesting semantics with the clear need that signatures seeks to solve?]
>
> I'll be around, but putting my $$ where my fingers have been.
>
> Thank you and this dude abides,
> Brett
>
>
> 0. https://perlmonks.org/?node_id=861966
>

As an outsider, I just wanted to say that I see you as a slightly more coherent version of Philip R Brenan. It's clear you don't have a very good understanding of the topics you're talking about and yet you act like you're perl's architect-in-chief. Ideas are cheap, especially the bad ones.

John Bee
Re: thank you (was Re: {RFC} Should we "cancel" Perl 7?) [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:18 PM johnbee99 via perl5-porters <
perl5-porters@perl.org> wrote:

> As an outsider, I just wanted to say that I see you as a slightly more
> coherent version of Philip R Brenan. It's clear you don't have a very good
> understanding of the topics you're talking about and yet you act like
> you're perl's architect-in-chief. Ideas are cheap, especially the bad ones.
>

John, I would ask you to please refer to
https://perldoc.perl.org/perlpolicy#STANDARDS-OF-CONDUCT -- particularly
the points "Always be civil" and "am I being kind?" and ask you to reflect
on what you said and if it could have been said more kindly, or perhaps not
at all.