This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI discuss from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI discuss contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: That's reasonable, but I, personally don't. here's your chance to design a process that other people can use. - A unique naming scheme can serve its function if it's formulated in the context of a fixed set of proposals, effectively forming a library collection. Ideally, this collection would be comprehensive in some sense of the word. Presently, in almost any sense of the word, the collection that would result from the current SRFI set is not comprehensive. i isolated the bad word here. "ideally" is also tempting, but "if" wins by precedence. it seems to me that predicating "usefulness" on vague notions of hypothetical completeness means nothing can ever be deemed useful. the fix is to simplify your evaluation function (but not back to the status quo ;-). assuming that we accumulate more wisdom with time, and, therefore, better proposals. there's a supermarket around here called ranch-99. when someone asks me where to get (really smelly) fish sauce i tell them its name. communication happens foremost so that people don't starve. to the hungry, any scrap will do, even if it's smelly and even if it's not solid food (but it has to be more than air). i've heard the stone soup fable, and have to wonder: are all these vegetative hints missing the pot somehow? thi