Shriram Krishnamurthi <xxxxxx@cs.rice.edu> writes:

> Michael Livshin wrote:
>
> > I think this is a very important test of the whole SRFI process, in
> > fact.  and I hope the process will pass this test.
>
> Lest we go overboard with the rhetoric here, the process stands
> perfectly untainted if the SRFI is withdrawn, also.

yeah, like R*RS process.

[ sorry, couldn't resist, etc. ]

> As for this phrase, "abusing the process", I searched through the mail
> archive a few days ago and, interestingly enough, I don't believe I
> (or anyone else critical of Per) introduced it -- it was Per who
> did.

while we pick on wording:
> 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.

a rose by any other name, etc.

--mike, shutting up

--
The software isn't finished until the last user is dead.