Juerd, check out Personalizing the linkers which is a much better version of a similar equest to the one you made, but actually contains sufficient info that an implementation was put into place almost immediately. The only thing you overestimated is my knowledge the locations of the perl6 docs and desire to go hunt the required url schemes down. OTOH, you were lucky that Tanktalus was a little more motivated.

The point here is that requests like this should be thought out when they are posted. Would it have been that hard to actually have included the links you wanted? Anyway, i guess my tone wasn't that great in the node. If so I apologise, its just I guess i expect someone clever and an old site hand like yourself to provide a better spec. Cheers.

The only thing you overestimated is my knowledge the locations of the perl6 docs and desire to go hunt the required url schemes down.

No. I also overestimated your question asking skills, and your friendliness.

The point here is that requests like this should be thought out when they are posted.

A request is a request. It's not an order, it's not an item for your to do list. Specifications can in fact wait until consensus about more superficial issues, like the syntax of the link, has been reached. I am offended by your implication that I did not think it out. If I knew all the details involved, that would mean I would be pmdev, and I had probably supplied a patch. But I am mostly ignorant of the black magic that drives Perl Monks. As an ordinary user, I expect to not have to care about details, and that the more involved people will ask for the information they need. (Rather than complain bitterly about its inavailability.)

If I say: "It's hot. Let's get some ice cream, or otherwise a cold drink.", would you then respond: "Ice cream does not go well with my diet. Besides, your proposal lacks definition of where to get ice cream and which ice cream to get. You cannot expect me to be motivated."? Because that's the way I read your reply.

There is a HUGE difference between "You have missed some essential parts out of your request ... it won't happen ... it's a non starter ... there is nothing to be done from this request" and "For this to work we need more information, ...".

Would it have been that hard to actually have included the links you wanted?

No, it would have been very easy. However, I was expecting some discussion over to which exact URL to link (as there are several), or whether maybe mirroring the information on this site would be a good idea. The actual URLs are the least important information. Unless, of course, you see the request as a work order than needs implementation without further discussion. But I am not your boss, and I actually do expect the input of multiple people before anything is done, because I acknowledge that I cannot possibly think of the perfect solution all by myself. The category is called PerlMonks Discussion. I expect a root node to initiate discussion, not to directly initiate any action.

i expect someone clever and an old site hand like yourself to provide a better spec.

Specs are for a later stadium, and that's good. What would have come of Perl 6 if Larry Wall came with the specification (the synopses) before suggesting that the community create a new Perl? It would have incorporated the thoughts of only one man, wouldn't be very flexible, and support for it would not have been as great. It would indeed have sped up implementation, but sometimes speed is no issue. With links to Perl 6 design documents, I don't think anyone wants them yesterday. There hasn't been an easy way to do this for years, and it can easily wait a few more days or weeks without anyone getting upset over their nonexistence.

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }