Tom Lord wrote:
> What are the possibilities?
>
> + Scott's a troll, out to abuse the SRFI process.
>
>   Luckilly, the process is pretty robust wrt that.  My intuition is
>   that Scott is _not_ a troll ...

Agreed. However, I do get the impression that he has too much of an
emotional investment or that he doesn't get the point of the withdrawal
process.

> + The skeptics are just way wrong.
>
>   Maybe.  The "meta-SRFI" idea isn't completely full of it.  But at
>   the very least, the _very_ least, the SRFI process isn't intended
>   for "meta-SRFIs".  So, withdrawal makes sense even so.

Agreed. This is a design document, not an implementation, and the SRFI
FAQ makes it pretty clear that this is not the place for design
documents.

Actually, as written, SRFI-44 isn't even a design document for Scheme
code. It's a design doc for future *SRFIs*, which takes it one more step
removed from an actual implementation.

> + The skeptics are right-enough -- the proposal is withdrawn
>
>   We can all look forward to a much improved resubmission sometime
>   in the future.

Yes, that would be good.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd