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. Scott
Attachment:
pgp9ca00105s9.pgp
Description: PGP signature