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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal



On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 08:56:51PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Tom Lord wrote:
> > We have in '*-get-{left,right}' a proposed naming convention.
> > Both meta-names name the same thing, according to the spec.
> 
> Is this the get-left/right for bags? I've already raised this issue.
> These interfaces are inappropriate for bags, which have no concept of
> sequence -- if they did, they wouldn't be bags.

Ordered bags most certainly have a well defined concept of direction.  
Other bags may as well.  For example, a queue is a bag which is not 
ordered in the SRFI-44 sense (the ordering isn't value determined) but 
has a well defined left/right distinction.

> 
> Which model does SRFI-44 follow? Is it attached to a compelling product
> that programmers imitate out of admiration? No. Is it a corporate or
> product standard that programmers are compelled to follow? No. Does it
> include a change process that allows the standard to evolve? No.

> 
> I have, however, seen many failed coding standards that tried the
> approach of SRFI-44.

If you're right you'll see one more.  Whats the harm?

> 
> This is *why* we've been recommending the "publish a concrete
> collections library worthy of imitation" approach. SRFI-44 is trying
> approach #2 above, but that's doomed to fail -- finalization is *totally
> inappropriate* for that kind of standard. Notice how SRFI authors try to
> imitate the interfaces of the "good" SRFIs? That's approach #1 above.

Many disagree with you.  And people imitate the interfaces of previous 
SRFIs in order to provide consistency.  In the area of SRFI-44, there is 
almost no precedent, so thats just not possible.  And interoperability 
is too critical to leave it to chance with your method #1.

> A naming standard SRFI is counterproductive and inappropriate. I've
> already explained how SRFI-44 isn't appropriate for a SRFI. I'll add to
> that: SRFI isn't appropriate for a naming standard. It's a poor fit in
> both directions.

And we're never going to agree.  I guess we'll both just have to live 
with it.
	
	Scott

Attachment: pgpkioa6VqP1z.pgp
Description: PGP signature