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