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.
Francisco Solsona wrote:
> Allow me to clarify my position. There are two opposing ideas
> regarding the open issues in SRFI-44:
>
> 1. Scott et al. say they are *minor* issues.
> 2. Bradd et al. say they are *major* issues.
>
> If they are indeed minor issues, then extending the draft period is
> not unprecedented. If they are not, then you are correct we should
> follow the withdrawal procedure to allow further discussion.
OK, that makes sense.
> I'm siding with Scott because, after all, he *is* the author and he
> thinks the issues are minor, and that the SRFI is very close to match
> the final product he has in mind.
Scott and I have been talking past each other on this point. I try to
classify issues as "major" or "minor" based on these criteria:
major becomes a defect if it isn't fixed before release
minor becomes an inconvenience if it isn't fixed
I think Scott uses them like this:
major fundamental problems with the design
minor isolated problems in the implementation
Unfortunately, I'm not entirely consistent, so I've probably switched
between the two meanings myself. I do believe that there are defects in
the design and the implementation both, although it's a bit difficult to
separate the two, given the nature of the proposal (which is more design
than implementation).
> There has been questions about the SRFI not conforming to the process
> (dependencies, conflicts, etc.), and I accuse myself of missing those.
> Please blame the poor editing, not the process, which I don't believe
> is being damaged by this case.
OK, that makes me feel better.
> One last thing, we are extending the draft period until November the
> 28th, and Scott will have to decide then what to do.
Sounds reasonable.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd