Alex Shinn scripsit:

> If you gave feedback you were expecting to be addressed, please double
> check that it was.

My editorial corrections in
<http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00051.html> were not
integrated, although the last two substantive points were addressed.

Ditto for <http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00057.html>,
whose only point is that saying "prohibitively expensive" in a spec
that provides the expensive feature in a spec is a bad idea; the first
word should be dropped.  Similarly, the statement under "backref" that
"their use should be avoided" is inappropriate.  When you need them,
you have to be prepared to pay the cost.

In <http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00020.html>,
Michael Montague requested textual alternate names for the patterns ?,
*, +, etc.  You agreed, but haven't done it.

You said in
<http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00054.html> that you
would include regexp->sre with a warning that the result might not be
`equal?` to the original, but you haven't done it yet.

On the issues section:

Drop the PCRE issue; you aren't going to integrate it now.

Move the scsh reductions to the rationale section.

Drop the | and & issue or move it to a section-specific rationale
section.

Move the issue about Irregex extensions to the rationale section.

Apparently you are going to stick with => for backward compat, though
most people have favored switching to <-. Drop this issue, therefore.

Most of the remaining issues should go to the rationale section.

> The remaining extended features I've split into regexp-non-greedy and
> regexp-look-around.  There is still debate whether the features should
> be provided at all.

This is the only remaining live issue, and should be moved to the issues
section or resolved.  Remember that anything left in the issues section
at SRFI finalization is supposed to be dropped by the SRFI editor, per
the SRFI template.

--
Note that nobody these days would clamor for fundamental laws        John Cowan
of *the theory of kangaroos*, showing why pseudo-kangaroos are   xxxxxx@ccil.org
physically, logically, metaphysically impossible.    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Kangaroos are wonderful, but not *that* wonderful.     --Dan Dennett on zombies