Re: Are we done? Are other changes needed to maximize adoption? Alan Manuel Gloria 17 Sep 2012 00:25 UTC
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@lava.net> wrote: > I skimmed the revised spec, didn't see obvious problems. I haven't > had a chance to actually implement and try it in Gauche yet, but > I hope soon I can. > > The only comment so far is that the rather lengthy rational section; > I understand you have lots to say and they're all useful, but > the first time readers may wonder why you need so much rationals, > before she actually read the specification. It occurred to me that > it might help if examples are presented before rationals. > (But the reader can click the link to jump to the specfication anyways, > so the order may not be important so much...) Well, the SRFI standard requires rationale before spec. Although I think we (David and I) may have misinterpreted it a bit; possibly, the reason why rationale comes before spec is because the rationale is supposed to be a rationale for why the SRFI exists, not a rationale for each detail in the spec. I notice that SRFI-26 for example has a separate "Design Rationale" which comes after the specifications. David, maybe we can reorg the spec slightly to add a separate "Design Rationale" after the specifications? Sincerely, AmkG