> From: xxxxxx@freenetproject.org

    > The burden of proof certainly rests on the author when there are valid=20
    > criticisms.  Its unreasonable to expect an author defend against=20
    > vaporous claims.  You've made many valid points, including most recently=20
    > the problems with multiple values mapped from like keys, and I'll be=20
    > making those changes.

Aren't you overtime already?

SRFIs happen on a short timeline, suggesting that the author has
claimed to have nailed an area except for minor details.

In SRFI-34:  one revision was to rename a procedure because it
collided with a procedure in use in a popular implementation.   That's
the level of revision that's comfortable.

A lot of good has potentially resulted from your proposing a srfi --
you've gotten lots of useful feedback suggesting a need for rather
deep revisions to the proposal.

Need for deep revisions == occaision upon which withdrawal is the
right action.   The above quote from you is part of a thread that
looks like:

	S: I claim to have nailed this space.
        B: No, you haven't, for example X.

The right next line is:

	S: [slaps forhead] D'oh!   Withdrawn (for now).

-t