This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
> From: scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > The burden of proof certainly rests on the author when there are valid=20 > criticisms. Its unreasonable to expect an author defend against=20 > vaporous claims. You've made many valid points, including most recently=20 > the problems with multiple values mapped from like keys, and I'll be=20 > making those changes. Aren't you overtime already? SRFIs happen on a short timeline, suggesting that the author has claimed to have nailed an area except for minor details. In SRFI-34: one revision was to rename a procedure because it collided with a procedure in use in a popular implementation. That's the level of revision that's comfortable. A lot of good has potentially resulted from your proposing a srfi -- you've gotten lots of useful feedback suggesting a need for rather deep revisions to the proposal. Need for deep revisions == occaision upon which withdrawal is the right action. The above quote from you is part of a thread that looks like: S: I claim to have nailed this space. B: No, you haven't, for example X. The right next line is: S: [slaps forhead] D'oh! Withdrawn (for now). -t