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
>
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
>