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

Re: Comments on SRFI 69



felix winkelmann wrote:
As Shiro's
cross-reference shows, there is a common naming pattern, and Panu has
(AFAICT) tried to follow that pattern.

I don't know what you're referring to here. Are you referring to something within the document? Or something within the discussion archive?

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
be neglected.

This is irrelevant. SRFI 44 outlines a consistent naming scheme and set of operators and semantics that future data structure specifications may follow. The SRFI states only that it does not follow these conventions. My question is *why*? What improvement is made by not following these conventions? These questions should be answered in a section of the document that discusses this SRFIs relation to others. The answer "SRFI 44 is not important" does not explain why these names are an improvement. (And even if it did, this is not in the document).

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
proposals, or at least discuss basic problems with the author.

The document meets the structural requirements of the SRFI process document; there were, and still are, no grounds for rejecting the document. These are my personal comments, which I intended to be helpful. I apologize they didn't come sooner in the discussion period.

David