This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
felix <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > But, if we end up with a multitude of different SRFIs, addressing > common functionality (this reminds me of SRFI-0 vs. SRFI-7, BTW), we > have gained nothing. I'm kind of uncomfortable with this interpretation of the SRFI process. I think it makes final SRFI's more preemtive of competing ideas than is helpful to the language. It's obviously good to avoid gratuitous differences. So a SRFI's editors should feel obliged to address as many concerns as they can, and help the SRFI address as wide an audience as they can. But to suggest that a SRFI should not be finalized until there is a consensus that it's the right thing is to re-impose the same sorts of restrictions that the SRFI process was established to work around, as they affected the definition of the language itself.