This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 17 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 17 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Per Bothner wrote: > I suspect everybody has said their thing, > and I don't think we will come to agreement on whether its > a good idea or not. I personally am disappointed that the proponents of this SRFI have done little other than indicate it is good because it exists, while it exists because it is good. Matthias and others have repeatedly raised objections to it, on the grounds that it conflates two distinct notions, and these haven't ever been properly answered. (A response like "I don't like the idea of multiplying syntax gratuitiously" is hardly an answer, because the problem here is not syntactic but semantic.) I had hoped for a better discussion on a SRFI. But there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it, and the SRFI process allows strategies such this to succeed in producing final SRFIs. I hope it won't be repeated, but those hopes do nothing to address the status of SRFI-17. Perhaps it's just best to close this out without further ado. 'shriram, speaking strictly personally, not as an editor