> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> In the SRFI Process, "Your implementation is incomplete" certain is a
>> valid criticism.

xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> This is a circular argument.  I'm now going to say you've provided no
> evidence to that point, you're going to say you have, and we're going
> to keep going in circles.

The SRFI specifies a "set" type. The reference implementation does not
actually implement that type. The SRFI specifies a distinct "bag" type.
The reference implementation does not include a distinct bag type. Those
are facts.

You keep making excuses for why the implementation is incomplete. One of
them is, "I don't have time for it." While I sympathize with that, the
SRFI process has an answer for it: Withdraw the SRFI until you do have
time to produce a complete, mature draft. Other excuses boil down to,
"Nyah nyah, I don't hafta." The SRFI process has an answer for that too:
If the reviewers' consensus is that your implementation is incomplete or
immature, yes, you do hafta.

>> It's not vaporous, your implementation *isn't* complete.

> Because you think something cannot be implemented in the future but
> won't say what it is?

No, because the SRFI process insists that "can be implemented in the
future" is not good enough.

> And there are plenty of people that disagree with you but don't want to
> fan this flamewar.

"The lurkers support me in e-mail." Where have I heard that before?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd