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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal



Bradd wrote:
>> 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.

Taylor Campbell wrote:
> Please show us the correct place to submit meta-SRFIs, then.

You have read the SRFI FAQ, right?

    I really think that there should be a place to archive
    non-implementation documents.

    You're not alone! There seem to be lots of people who disagree with
    the editors on this point. We will almost certainly address this
    need in the not too distant future - possibly within the SRFI
    process, or more likely with a separate process. If you have ideas
    on how this should be done, please send mail to
    <srfi-editors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Why don't you two actually follow its advice and establish a forum for
coding standards and design docs? I dunno whether there's actually a
compelling need for that, but you could try. It would be better than
trying to submarine the SRFI charter.
-- 
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd