SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Arthur A. Gleckler (21 Apr 2021 15:00 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (21 Apr 2021 15:12 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Arthur A. Gleckler (21 Apr 2021 15:17 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Arthur A. Gleckler (21 Apr 2021 15:20 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (21 Apr 2021 15:24 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Felix Thibault (21 Apr 2021 18:51 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Felix Thibault (02 Jul 2021 06:55 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Arthur A. Gleckler (07 Jul 2021 01:11 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Felix Thibault (09 Jul 2021 06:45 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (21 Apr 2021 19:08 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Amirouche Boubekki (30 May 2021 16:04 UTC)
Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Jun 2021 21:28 UTC)

Re: SRFI 204: 300 days. Will anyone volunteer to take over? Felix Thibault 21 Apr 2021 18:51 UTC

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:12 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
<xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>
> I hope Felix is okay.

Thanks! I am'

> The current section called "Specification" is partly imprecise and mixes examples, explaining rationales, actual specification, and description of the same implementation.

I know there are a lot of examples, etc. in the specification. In my
experience, if something is a srfi, many implementations will link to
that srfi as documentation, so it seems like I should be taking users
as well as implementers into account, since it will be the only
reference plenty of users get referred to.