[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [oleg@xxxxxxxxx: Interface view of dictionaries]
> 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
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 Withdrawn (for now).