[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [oleg@xxxxxxxxx: Interface view of dictionaries]
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> In the SRFI Process, "Your implementation is incomplete" certain is a
>> valid criticism.
> 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
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