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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal

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.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:57:38PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Bradd wrote:
> >> I've stated them enough already. If you don't remember them, you can
> >> re-read the archive. That's what it's for.
> scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Again, I asked for points from an organizational standpoint.
> And I see it as a delaying tactic. I've made my points already, and
> they're archived in public.
> >>> I argue that no distinct implementation of bag is required since
> >>> sequences must have all the properties of a bag.
> >> You specify it as a distinct type but don't implement it that way.
> >> That's an incomplete implementation.
> > What?  Sequences are not a distinct type from bags, they are a
> > subtype.  Please reread the SRFI.
> Please pay attention. Bag is a distinct type from sequence, yet it has
> no distinct implementation.

Speaking of delay tactics:  Please reread the SRFI.  Sequence is a 
subtype of bag. 

> The editors have already answered that issue in the FAQ: It's the wrong
> forum. And that wasn't the issue I was talking about. Deciding whether
> the implementation is complete is subject to reviewer consensus.

The spirit of the SRFI process is much more important than its letter.  
The items in the FAQ are a guideline.  Its ultimately up to the editors 
to determine whether this is legitimate.

> And it isn't complete. Also, I was talking about your more recent
> comment that there's still work to do on dictionaries in general.

What exactly is your objection to discussing those issues?  Whats your 

> >> Introducing new primitives is a "minor issue"?
> > There is one new primitive: *-get-any.  I see this as quite minor.
> And I disagree.

You have quite a sense of drama then.  

> It's been 90 days even if you don't include summer break.

The SRFI draft period is six months.  Virtually no discussion occured 
from mid may to mid august, and from late august until late september.  
If the spirit of the SRFI process is to provide an adequate period of 
discussion, I'd be disappointed if they forcibly withdrew the SRFI 
despite it having only ~3 months of actual discussion.

Attachment: pgp7PMCCqRnVH.pgp
Description: PGP signature