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

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

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.

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> In the SRFI Process, "Your implementation is incomplete" certain is a
>> valid criticism.

scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> This is a circular argument.  I'm now going to say you've provided no
> evidence to that point, you're going to say you have, and we're going
> to keep going in circles.

The SRFI specifies a "set" type. The reference implementation does not
actually implement that type. The SRFI specifies a distinct "bag" type.
The reference implementation does not include a distinct bag type. Those
are facts.

You keep making excuses for why the implementation is incomplete. One of
them is, "I don't have time for it." While I sympathize with that, the
SRFI process has an answer for it: Withdraw the SRFI until you do have
time to produce a complete, mature draft. Other excuses boil down to,
"Nyah nyah, I don't hafta." The SRFI process has an answer for that too:
If the reviewers' consensus is that your implementation is incomplete or
immature, yes, you do hafta.

>> It's not vaporous, your implementation *isn't* complete.

> Because you think something cannot be implemented in the future but
> won't say what it is?

No, because the SRFI process insists that "can be implemented in the
future" is not good enough.

> And there are plenty of people that disagree with you but don't want to 
> fan this flamewar.

"The lurkers support me in e-mail." Where have I heard that before?
Bradd W. Szonye