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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal



On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:10:34PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Stand-alone naming standards almost always fail unless there's an
> enforcement mechanism to mandate use, and finalization is wholly
> inappropriate for naming standards, which must evolve with use in order
> to remain usable. How do you plan to address those major issues?

Can you name some examples?  You also realize that future SRFIs can 
conflict with past ones.  This is why we have a wholely new exceptions 
SRFI.

> While your optimism is admirable, you're largely ignoring the advice of
> two QA experts who are trying to warn you of major problems, and you're
> even ignoring the advice of the SRFI process itself. That's not a good
> sign -- it strongly suggests that you're too eager to release the
> document whether it's ready or not.

I'm ignoring the SRFI process because I understand what its goals are.  
Its not force of law you know, and Francisco has indicated that I'm not 
off in left field on this.

> You'd do much better to follow Tom's advice: Start something like a
> Sourceforge project, use SRFI-44 as the initial naming standard, recruit
> developers to design and implement good concrete collections, use them
> in a few real projects, and then SRFI the results. At that point it
> really should be a rubber stamp, and the product will be *much* more
> beneficial to the Scheme community.

No thanks. 

> Meanwhile, keep an eye out on CLS and similar forums for people who are
> trying to reinvent your wheel, and bring them on board to reduce
> duplication of effort. *That's* a good way to manage this project.

That will be necessary regardless, but I don't suspect it will be a 
problem, this SRFI was started because there was already desire to write 
collections.  See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=vafpt8f4n4dp8f%40corp.supernews.com


> 
> Now, you may not have the time to manage that and see it through to
> completion. That may seem like a problem to you, but honestly I don't
> think it's a good idea to submit a SRFI unless you're willing to see it
> done right, through to the end, or you're willing to hand it off to
> somebody who can complete your work. In addition to the other things
> I've mentioned, you'd do well to read up on "egoless programming" --
> while it's great to be the guy who gets the job done, it's even better
> to see the job done right.

I'm quite ready to see it done right, thats why I'm still arguing with 
you.

	Scott

Attachment: pgp65DNVuj9Kb.pgp
Description: PGP signature