Re: Are we done? Are other changes needed to maximize adoption? David A. Wheeler 17 Sep 2012 00:52 UTC

Alan Manuel Gloria:
> 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?

I can't imagine someone seriously complaining about that, especially if we keep a "Rationale" up front in its official place.  Especially since SRFI-26 was accepted that that order.

Shiro Kawai:
>I don't think it's too long, though; it contains valuable
>discussion. It's just that the reader needs to see what srfi-105 is
>before understanding "why not this, not that" rationale.

An excellent reason to move it.

Okay, I'll split up the rationale; nearly all is design rationale, which will now be below the specification.

--- David A. Wheeler