[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI 78 draft extension
Per Bothner wrote:
> A significant issue has been raised: that it wastefully duplicates
> SRFI-64. I really think it is a bad idea to have two SRFIs for
> testing that both have a very similar style. [...]
You have expressed this opinion before and I still
do not agree.
The reasons are stated in my earlier postings.
> I've expressed willingness to modify SRFI-64
if it is deficient.
> The other complaint about SRFI-64 (besides it's tardiness, I'm sorry)
> is that it has too much functionality. If that is a problem
> split SRFI-64 into a "test-writer" API and a "test-runner"
> might make it easier for people to digest what they need. (However,
> would prefer not to have to split the implementation - I don't think
> that would be useful.)
> Unfortunately, I have not gotten any feedback on these suggestions.
> I was hoping for some willingness on Sabastian's to work with us on
> getting to a common API, but haven't seen any sign of that. Sigh.
You find my suggestions for SRFI-64 in an earlier
and of course in the specification of SRFI-78 itself.
From your reply it is apparent that you do not consider
relevant enough to change anything in SRFI-64. That
with me. In particular, I will not urge you to withdraw
On the contrary: I would like to encourage you to
in the fashion that appears most consistent to yourself.
Apart from that, please bear in mind that this is
list of SRFI-78, and not of SRFI-64. According to
me, the primary
purpose of this mailing list is to put forward constructive
criticism for improvement of the SRFI at hand, of
which I have
received a few---but not from you.