> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Is this the get-left/right for bags? I've already raised this issue.
>> These interfaces are inappropriate for bags, which have no concept of
>> sequence -- if they did, they wouldn't be bags.

xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> Ordered bags most certainly have a well defined concept of direction.

Then why is it defined for all bags and not just the ordered ones?
Wasn't that your argument when we proposed atomic operations for
tree-based dictionaries?

> Other bags may as well.

Can you give an example that would not be a sequence or an ordered bag?

> For example, a queue is a bag which is not ordered in the SRFI-44
> sense (the ordering isn't value determined) but has a well defined
> left/right distinction.

Queues are sequences. Try again.

>> A naming standard SRFI is counterproductive and inappropriate. I've
>> already explained how SRFI-44 isn't appropriate for a SRFI. I'll add
>> to that: SRFI isn't appropriate for a naming standard. It's a poor
>> fit in both directions.

> And we're never going to agree.  I guess we'll both just have to live
> with it.

Why do you believe that SRFI is the right venue for a naming standard,
anyway? So far, you haven't explained it beyond, "Because I can," or
"Because the editors accepted the proposal." Do you actually have any
expertise in the area of standards and best practices? Specifically with
naming standards?

I ask because right now at least one expert in the area, maybe more, is
trying to tell you that you're going about it the wrong way, and even
trying to explain it to you in detail, and your response so far has been
simple denial, with occasional appeals that it's somehow important to
the future of the Scheme community.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd