On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 08:10:03PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > 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?

Do I expect people to write incompatible collections? No.  Do I expect
people to start publishing conforming ones?  Maybe.  Assuming all other
things are resolved, there's no reason to hold it back.

	Scott