This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> I strongly suggest that you read the SRFI Process Document and FAQ > again. Your SRFI is already overdue, it's had several major changes, it > still has major issues with the dictionary concept, and most of it is > unimplemented. Based on that, you really should withdraw the SRFI until > (1) you resolve all of the major issues *and* (2) you have a complete > implementation for every collection type to prove the concept. > > That second part is very important, and you can't excuse it just by > saying that it's a "meta-SRFI." I suspect that you'll eventually run > into problems with the way you've classified the collections. But I > don't know for sure, and neither do you, because you don't have *any* > implementation of a set or bag. We're going to have to agree to disagree at this point. The API for both bags and sets are sound, and the remaining issues with dictionaries are all but solved. SRFIs needn't have unanimous approval, nor are they gospel that must be implemented by all. If this SRFI has problems, as you have stated without any supporting evidence, then may it die a horrible death of neglect. This SRFI is a necessary step towards a standard library of usable collections, not the final word on such a library. So, barring additional concrete criticism by others this SRFI will be finalized sooner rather than later. Thank you for your valid insights into the earlier flaws. The SRFI is better because of them. Scott
Description: PGP signature