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

Re: [oleg@xxxxxxxxx: Interface view of dictionaries]

    > From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx>

    > Indeed. I personally don't hold grudges, and I realize that
    > defensiveness is a natural reaction to negative review comments, so I'm
    > not going to hold any of this against Scott -- at least not in a "you
    > suck!" way. 

I hope that it's safe and accurate to say that "none of us will do
that -- just the very opposite."

What I'm trying to get across is that there's no reason for excessive
emotional investment here:  the withdrawal procedure exists for
_exactly_ this kind of situation -- it _strengthens_ not weakens the
prospects of an eventual revised resubmission.   I again point to the
history and references of SRFI-34 as a nice paradigm to follow.

I've read the proposed SRFI.  I'm firmly on the side of the skeptics
-- it ain't ready for prime time.  I'm not alone in that judgement.

What are the possibilities?

+ Scott's a troll, out to abuse the SRFI process.

  Luckilly, the process is pretty robust wrt that.  My intuition is
  that Scott is _not_ a troll and, if he is, woo-hoo! he managed to
  get a document archived somewhere while more serious people thought
  a bit about the serious topic of collections.

+ The skeptics are just way wrong.

  Maybe.  The "meta-SRFI" idea isn't completely full of it.  But at
  the very least, the _very_ least, the SRFI process isn't intended
  for "meta-SRFIs".  So, withdrawal makes sense even so.

+ The skeptics are right-enough -- the proposal is withdrawn

  We can all look forward to a much improved resubmission sometime
  in the future.