SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 18:44 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 18:49 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:43 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:46 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(10 Dec 2022 20:49 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:56 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 20:57 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through Lassi Kortela (10 Dec 2022 21:46 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 22:09 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 22:27 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
John Cowan
(10 Dec 2022 21:29 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 22:03 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 22:12 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Dec 2022 02:54 UTC)
|
> I strongly disagree and would like to politely request that you not use the mailing list for this SRFI to discuss your views on the issue of the SRFI process in general. I'm afraid I don't respect your sentiment. I've spared no effort to help the process and the result is incomprehension and disdain. Wrong list; wrong tone; who invited you here; we like our stuff the way it is; etc. Anyone else who's come along, and who will come along in the future to raise similar concerns will receive a similar response. That's the real problem. When it comes to big picture thinking, all this community can muster is to shoot the messenger. I'll finish up my existing SRFIs and focus my Scheme efforts elsewhere. Nothing personal; if you all shape up in the future I'm happy to return, but with the culture as it is I'm not having it. Enjoy the calmer lists!