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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 08:36:13PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > Tom Lord wrote:
> >> You want valuable feedback?  Withdraw it.  You don't?  Fine, your
> >> finalized 44 is an example of what not to do.  I'll be sure to cite
> >> it as such at the first opportunity.
> scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Again, there is still room for discussion before finalization without
> > withdrawal.
> You've already rejected some solutions because they were too radical or
> difficult to implement in your rush toward finalization.
No, because they we're ill conceived or outside the SRFI's scope.  

> > Only you and Bradd seem to think its a finalize now or withdraw
> > situation.
> We're just following the published guidelines and trying to encourage
> you to work out the issues in a more appropriate forum. I don't know
> whether there's any real teeth behind the limited draft period, but
> there should be.
Francisco (the SRFI editor) has spoken to those issues.  

> And really, I don't think it's "finalize now or withdraw." I believe
> that the SRFI is likely to fail if you finalize now. It's much more
> likely to succeed if you withdraw it and present a good set of concrete
> collections instead. As a bonus, that would actually benefit the Scheme
> community directly, and it would make SRFI-44 unnecessary.

So what?  If you believe it will fail, whats to stop you from writing 
your own collections interface?  The SRFI process doesn't require only 
one solution.  See SRFI's 0, 1, and 7 for example.  

You seem to have made up your mind already, so you should take great 
pleasure in watching it fail.


Attachment: pgpulssbPcE4e.pgp
Description: PGP signature