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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal



> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Please pay attention. Bag is a distinct type from sequence, yet it
>> has no distinct implementation.

scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Speaking of delay tactics:  Please reread the SRFI.  Sequence is a
> subtype of bag. 

Could you please at least *try* to understand what I'm writing? The SRFI
specifies a type which is a bag but which is not a sequence. However,
there is no implementation of that type.

>> 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
> hurry?

I'm in no particular hurry. However:

    Are SRFIs a discussion forum for preliminary ideas?

    No. SRFIs stands for ``Scheme Request for Implementation''. Note the
    last word. If someone has amorphous ideas for something that would
    be cool, but has no idea how it might be done, they should discuss
    it in journals, workshops, seminars or news groups. When the
    discussions have coalesced to the point where an implementation
    strategy is apparent, then it is time to write up a SRFI proposal.

Right now, the work on dictionaries is very much at the "preliminary
idea" stage. That's why I suggested that you excise dictionaries from
the SRFI or withdraw it until you can work out a clear implementation
strategy and write it up.

>>>> 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.  

Drama has nothing to do with it. I'm going by objective standards for
code reviews. "Major issue" means that it becomes a defect if you don't
fix it before release.

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

> The SRFI draft period is six months.

Where did you get that idea?

    A proposal normally stays draft for 60 days ....
    The total discussion period must not exceed 90 days.

You may want to read the process doc and the FAQ again.

> 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.

Why would you be disappointed, when that's the documented rule?
-- 
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd