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 08:36:13PM -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
Description: PGP signature