Peyton-Jones

[Jagannathan, Suresh]

I propose that we tell him we'll start working on it, but that
we can't commit to a fixed timeline.  At the very minimum, Henry
and I (and possibly Matthew) can devote some number of cycles to
this so that Stephen can work on other stuff, and act as a reviewer
initially.  The reason why I don't want to brush Peyton-Jones off is
that being asked to a submit a paper is essentially an acknowledgement
that we write (provided it passes some basic threshold) will be
accepted; such opportunities don't often arise, and it would be
a pity to blow it off.

-- sj

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Weeks [mailto:sweeks@acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:18 PM
To: MLton@sourcelight.com
Subject: Peyton-Jones



> I would think that the grand overview of MLton is a more important paper
than
> smaller things like limit checks or exceptions, 

I agree, but I have no worry that eventually (maybe years away) the
grand overview will get done.  I have more worries that some of the
little papers won't, so I want to do those first.

> but on the other hand it also probably takes more time.

There is that.

> How  about telling him that a 6 month delay is needed.

I'd rather just tell him not now (and ask for him to hire me of
course :-).