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.
[ Grumble. Does _anyone_ know how to make Mail.app be smart and make the To: field be the mailing list instead of the sender? ] On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 16:28 US/Eastern, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
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.
Notice the _large_ duration of _no_ discussion, before you barged in. Notice how few days (seven or eight?) ago these new issues (...) were brought up.
2. The reference implementation is incomplete. Evidence: There's no implementation of set, and there's no implementation of bag as a distinct type.
A concrete collections SRFI is an entirely different thing to tackle altogether. I _am_ planning on working on one soon, by the way.
3. Dictionaries still aren't well-specified. Evidence: Author's own admission.4. The SRFI still lacks important primitives operations. Evidence: Thereis 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.
At last! A coherent issue!
5. The SRFI does not document its relationship with other standards andSRFIs. Specifically, it does not address potential incompatibilities.The SRFI process requires this documentation. Evidence: SRFI Process Document.
What, do you want us to say that VECTOR-SET! (or STRING-SET! or whatever) _might_ be incompatible with the current implementations of it? R5RS _allows_ VECTOR-SET! to return the modified vector, in fact, because its return value is _unspecified_ by R5RS.
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.
This is pretty subjective, as each party claims the evidence.
7. The SRFI is immature. Evidence: Active discussion and major changes implemented more than 90 days after the initial draft. As the SRFIProcess Document states: "Active discussion or revision after 90 daysnormally suggests that a proposal has been revised at least 3 times and is not yet mature enough for standardization."
_You_ (and bear, et alia) were the one who came in long after the SRFI was overdue. Have you not noticed the, oh, _six_months_ when you could have brought these issues up? Saying 'I've been away from Scheme for a long time' isn't going to help much, and it _definitely_ doesn't help bear and Tom. Nevertheless, as the number of issues I, Scott, and Matthias can find is very low and all of them are minor, I fail to see why a few minor issues make a SRFI 'immature.' Yes, you can continue to say that there must be some implementation, but this is a silly point: most of this SRFI is influenced from several other collection interfaces and such, which _have_ been implemented. Would you rather that we define sixteen concrete collection SRFIs all with their own inconsistent interfaces, withdraw them all to write a collection interface SRFI, breaking any code written with them, only to rewrite them _again_ with a new collection SRFI?
8. The SRFI is not an implementation at all. Evidence: The SRFI itselfpoints out that it's a "meta-SRFI" -- it isn't even a plan for Schemeimplementations, 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 show us the correct place to submit meta-SRFIs, then.
Please remember these two things: Note that [incomplete implementation] is never a permanentrejection, because creation of an implementation of one of the othertypes 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 candisrupt 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