SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry hga@xxxxxx (30 Aug 2020 12:37 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 14:01 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry hga@xxxxxx (30 Aug 2020 14:25 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 14:52 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry hga@xxxxxx (30 Aug 2020 15:45 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 16:06 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry John Cowan (30 Aug 2020 14:55 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 15:22 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry John Cowan (30 Aug 2020 16:05 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 16:39 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 16:56 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry hga@xxxxxx (30 Aug 2020 20:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry hga@xxxxxx (30 Aug 2020 15:23 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 15:35 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 15:44 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 17:05 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry John Cowan (30 Aug 2020 17:47 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry John Cowan (30 Aug 2020 18:56 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 18:59 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Aug 2020 19:45 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry hga@xxxxxx (30 Aug 2020 17:34 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry John Cowan (30 Aug 2020 17:55 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Arthur A. Gleckler (30 Aug 2020 18:27 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 18:57 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Arthur A. Gleckler (30 Aug 2020 19:10 UTC)
Don't panic Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 19:28 UTC)
Re: Don't panic Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Aug 2020 19:34 UTC)
Re: Don't panic Arthur A. Gleckler (30 Aug 2020 20:00 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela (30 Aug 2020 19:57 UTC)
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry John Cowan (30 Aug 2020 20:09 UTC)

Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Lassi Kortela 30 Aug 2020 15:35 UTC

I think the main source of confusion/disagreement has been this:

- You want status objects to belong to a class hierarchy (like single
inheritance in OOP).

- I believe a single-inheritance class hierarchy would 1) add complexity
we don't need; 2) risk painting us into a corner if we get statuses that
have a "multiple personality" and we have to arbitrarily decide that one
of the personalities dominates over the others.

It also seems to me that your main opposition to my approach is that you
think it's 1) confusing to the user receiving status objects; 2)
unreliable to the user receiving status objects.

Is this reasonable close?