> Shiro Kawai wrote:
>> The ideal resolution, seems to me, to have two srfis submitted
>> together, one for a generic collection srfi and the other for a
>> dictionary srfi.   The former just mention a dictionary obeys generic
>> collection attributes, but leaves the concrete API and implementation
>> to the latter.

xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> They naturally wouldn't be submitted exactly together, theres no
> reason to delay 44 that long, but I can see a coupling established
> through a forward looking statement in 44, or delaying 44 until the
> dictionary SRFI enters draft and gets a number.

Why is that natural? Why the rush to publish the naming conventions? Do
you expect people to beat you to the punch and publish incompatible
collections? Do you expect people to rush out and publish collections
that conform to your naming standard?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd