[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
On 8/11/05, David Van Horn <dvanhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't want to waste my or anybopdy else's time with a long-winded discussion
about the adequacy of this SRFI, but I'd like to point out that this SRFI
covers common hash-table pretty well. I also find the names well chosen,
and conflicts with existing implementations can not be avoided. As Shiro's
cross-reference shows, there is a common naming pattern, and Panu has
(AFAICT) tried to follow that pattern.
BTW, I don't think it makes sense to drag SRFI-44 into this discussion. Since no
Scheme system supports it (to my knowledge), it's importance can currently
Another thing that surprises me is that your comments come so late in the
draft period. As the editor of this SRFI, you have the right to reject
or at least discuss basic problems with the author.
So, to get to the point...
GO, PANU, GO!