[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [oleg@xxxxxxxxx: Interface view of dictionaries]
Tom Lord wrote:
> 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 ...
Agreed. However, I do get the impression that he has too much of an
emotional investment or that he doesn't get the point of the withdrawal
> + 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.
Agreed. This is a design document, not an implementation, and the SRFI
FAQ makes it pretty clear that this is not the place for design
Actually, as written, SRFI-44 isn't even a design document for Scheme
code. It's a design doc for future *SRFIs*, which takes it one more step
removed from an actual implementation.
> + The skeptics are right-enough -- the proposal is withdrawn
> We can all look forward to a much improved resubmission sometime
> in the future.
Yes, that would be good.
Bradd W. Szonye