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. Scott
Attachment:
pgpulssbPcE4e.pgp
Description: PGP signature