On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 07:48:37PM -1000, Shiro Kawai wrote:
> From: xxxxxx@freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: Reasons for withdrawal
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:49:38 -0600
> > BTW, did the concerns you raised earlier get adequately addressed in the
> > draft at http://sgmiller.org/code/srfi-44.html?
>
> "Size versus Length" section is now clear enough, I think.
>
> I'd still like to see a section or a note that refers to names
> which conflicts or confusing with existing srfis and popular
> implementations.  It may be a job of users to look them out,
> but having mentioned it in this srfi would be a great help
> for users and implementators.  Something like the following.

I would too.  Do you mind if I take what you wrote and polish it up for
inclusion?  You've done a fine job enumerating the points.  I don't
think we can hope to resolve all naming conflicts (and still map the
Scheme data structures to collections), but your text points out that
the collisions aren't egregious and where there are actual collisions
dispatch can preserve compatibility.

	Scott