Re: SRFI 78 draft extension

[Sebastian Egner <sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
we could
> split SRFI-64 into a "test-writer" API and a "test-runner"
API.  That
> might make it easier for people to digest what they need.  (However,
I
> 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
posting,
and of course in the specification of SRFI-78 itself.
From your reply it is apparent that you do not consider
them
relevant enough to change anything in SRFI-64. That
is fine
with me. In particular, I will not urge you to withdraw
SRFI-64.
On the contrary: I would like to encourage you to
finish it
in the fashion that appears most consistent to yourself.

Apart from that, please bear in mind that this is
the mailing
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.

Sebastian.