[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Are we done? Are other changes needed to maximize adoption?



On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Shiro Kawai <shiro@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I skimmed the revised spec, didn't see obvious problems.  I haven't
> had a chance to actually implement and try it in Gauche yet, but
> I hope soon I can.
>
> The only comment so far is that the rather lengthy rational section;
> I understand you have lots to say and they're all useful, but
> the first time readers may wonder why you need so much rationals,
> before she actually read the specification.  It occurred to me that
> it might help if examples are presented before rationals.
> (But the reader can click the link to jump to the specfication anyways,
> so the order may not be important so much...)

Well, the SRFI standard requires rationale before spec.

Although I think we (David and I) may have misinterpreted it a bit;
possibly, the reason why rationale comes before spec is because the
rationale is supposed to be a rationale for why the SRFI exists, not a
rationale for each detail in the spec.

I notice that SRFI-26 for example has a separate "Design Rationale"
which comes after the specifications.

David, maybe we can reorg the spec slightly to add a separate
"Design Rationale" after the specifications?

Sincerely,
AmkG