This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 115 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 115 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
Alex Shinn scripsit:
My editorial corrections in
> If you gave feedback you were expecting to be addressed, please double
> check that it was.
<http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00051.html> were not
integrated, although the last two substantive points were addressed.
Ditto for <http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00057.html>,
whose only point is that saying "prohibitively expensive" in a spec
that provides the expensive feature in a spec is a bad idea; the first
word should be dropped. Similarly, the statement under "backref" that
"their use should be avoided" is inappropriate. When you need them,
you have to be prepared to pay the cost.
Michael Montague requested textual alternate names for the patterns ?,
*, +, etc. You agreed, but haven't done it.
You said in
<http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00054.html> that you
would include regexp->sre with a warning that the result might not be
`equal?` to the original, but you haven't done it yet.
On the issues section: