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.
scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > In an attempt to break this circular flame war, please state your > objections in a point by point matter, citing evidence. 1. The draft period is already overdue, and there are still a few major issues to resolve. A slight delay to deal with minor issues might be OK, but extending the draft period for a re-design is not. That's what the withdraw-and-resubmit process is for. Evidence: The SRFI Process Document explains this clearly. 2. The reference implementation is incomplete. Evidence: There's no implementation of set, and there's no implementation of bag as a distinct type. 3. Dictionaries still aren't well-specified. Evidence: Author's own admission. 4. The SRFI still lacks important primitives operations. Evidence: There is no GET-ANY procedure to retrieve all dictionary elements that match a given domain value. GET-ANY is necessary for dictionaries with duplicate keys. It is both implementable and meaningful for all dictionaries, even those with unique keys. 5. The SRFI does not document its relationship with other standards and SRFIs. Specifically, it does not address potential incompatibilities. The SRFI process requires this documentation. Evidence: SRFI Process Document. 6. SRFI-44 does not address performance issues sufficiently, and its claim to present a sufficient "generic" interface encourages inefficient programming habits. Evidence: Conclusion based on experience and best practices in the field of re-use. 7. The SRFI is immature. Evidence: Active discussion and major changes implemented more than 90 days after the initial draft. As the SRFI Process Document states: "Active discussion or revision after 90 days normally suggests that a proposal has been revised at least 3 times and is not yet mature enough for standardization." 8. The SRFI is not an implementation at all. Evidence: The SRFI itself points out that it's a "meta-SRFI" -- it isn't even a plan for Scheme implementations, it's a design document for future SRFIs. The SRFI FAQ points out that this is the wrong venue for such documents. SRFI-44 attempts to implicitly change the SRFI process by hiding a change to that process inside a document that's nominally about something else. Bad, bad idea. Please remember these two things: Note that [incomplete implementation] is never a permanent rejection, because creation of an implementation of one of the other types is a complete refutation of this basis for rejection. The withdrawal and resubmission process exists so that you can re-open the SRFI when it is mature. Remember, even if a proposal becomes an final SRFI, the need for it must be compelling enough for implementors to decide to incorporate it into their systems, or it will have been a waste of time and effort for everyone involved. If the quality of any SRFI is not high, the likelihood of implementors adding this feature to their implementation is extremely low. There is an additional risk for a "meta-SRFI": A poor implementation can disrupt the SRFI process itself, as people debate whether you should consider the meta-SRFI binding. Consider the discussions about whether implementors should follow SRFI-1's example, and then consider the additional disruption created by a SRFI that's specifically intended to set an example. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd