On 12/2/23 08:00, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 3:04 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org <mailto:xxxxxx@nonceword.org>> wrote:
>
>     I don’t think this is relevant, unless ‘wrong-headed approach to the problem’ includes approaches to procedural as well as technical issues. If Sergei had made his proposal on the SRFI 245 list and was unsatisfied by the response, he could still have submitted his own SRFI with his own approach to the problem. As it is, this proposal was sprung on us as a separate, competing SRFI out of nowhere.
>
>
> I don't understand this response to SRFI 251.  I understand objecting on technical grounds, although I will take off my editor's hat for the rest of this sentence and say, for a moment, that I find the proposal perfectly reasonable and, in some ways, more natural in that it matches the experience at the REPL.
>
> Furthermore, with my editor's hat back on, there is nothing wrong with submitting a SRFI as a counterproposal to another, and it's especially reasonable to do so while a competing proposal is in its last-call period.  That's exactly when one wants a clear, well-documented argument for the opposing position, not just a simple comment in the discussion.  Yes, it is a surprise, but it is a completely reasonable one.

If Arthur hadn't written this, I would have chimed in with the same sentiment (if
not as eloquent) - even though I strongly prefer 245 to 251.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/