[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 08:10:03PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > Shiro Kawai wrote:
> >> The ideal resolution, seems to me, to have two srfis submitted
> >> together, one for a generic collection srfi and the other for a
> >> dictionary srfi.   The former just mention a dictionary obeys generic
> >> collection attributes, but leaves the concrete API and implementation
> >> to the latter.
> scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > They naturally wouldn't be submitted exactly together, theres no
> > reason to delay 44 that long, but I can see a coupling established
> > through a forward looking statement in 44, or delaying 44 until the
> > dictionary SRFI enters draft and gets a number.
> Why is that natural? Why the rush to publish the naming conventions? Do
> you expect people to beat you to the punch and publish incompatible
> collections? Do you expect people to rush out and publish collections
> that conform to your naming standard?

Do I expect people to write incompatible collections? No.  Do I expect 
people to start publishing conforming ones?  Maybe.  Assuming all other 
things are resolved, there's no reason to hold it back.  


Attachment: pgp9ca00105s9.pgp
Description: PGP signature