[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 03:35:52PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > 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.

Thank you, that makes much more sense than what you had said before.  
I challenge you once again to come up with examples of how the bag 
interface is unimplementable.  The reference implementation implements 
more than one sequence, which have bag semantics as well, so code 
coverage is obviously fine.

> 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.

I would agree that would be a problem if we agreed on the state of 
dictionaries.  I believe the dictionary interface is largely finished, 
with only the issue of n-to-n mappings unspecified (and solved by 

> 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.

What makes you think it won't be fixed 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?

Quite right, I apologize.  Nevertheless, this SRFI has really only seen 
around 90 days of discussion.  Though I am not the authority, I would 
like to again say that the SRFI process is a guideline whose rules are 
in place to prevent specific abuses such as SRFIs of indefinite extent.  
I would very much like to finalize this SRFI when the issues are 

> Why would you be disappointed, when that's the documented rule?

Because it would extend for a year the amount of time Scheme goes 
without a coherent collections API.  


Attachment: pgpbNlnaLV2EP.pgp
Description: PGP signature