Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 20:35 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (28 Oct 2003 21:24 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (28 Oct 2003 22:05 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 22:36 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 22:44 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 23:22 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 02:50 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:19 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 03:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:38 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 04:36 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 05:02 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:32 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Taylor Campbell (28 Oct 2003 22:56 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Taylor Campbell (28 Oct 2003 23:06 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 23:16 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 23:28 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 23:42 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 00:13 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 01:00 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 01:41 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 03:03 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (29 Oct 2003 05:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:54 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (29 Oct 2003 06:40 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 06:44 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (29 Oct 2003 07:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 07:34 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Thien-Thi Nguyen (29 Oct 2003 14:08 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 21:28 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 22:02 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 22:22 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Jim White (28 Oct 2003 22:15 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 01:25 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 01:44 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 04:10 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 04:53 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:10 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 05:17 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 01:49 UTC)
API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 05:48 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 06:03 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 17:40 UTC)
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 06:03 UTC)
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 14:19 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 22:25 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 22:41 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Taylor Campbell (29 Oct 2003 23:58 UTC)
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) Taylor Campbell (29 Oct 2003 21:40 UTC)
A possible solution? bear (29 Oct 2003 22:59 UTC)
RE: A possible solution? Anton van Straaten (30 Oct 2003 07:40 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 10:07 UTC)
RE: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 15:13 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 15:20 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 15:27 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 15:39 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 15:43 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 16:11 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 17:02 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 19:58 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:15 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 20:53 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:07 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Taylor Campbell (30 Oct 2003 21:08 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:11 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:17 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 23:11 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Alex Shinn (31 Oct 2003 03:03 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 23:19 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 00:26 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 05:32 UTC)
Re: API conflicts bear (30 Oct 2003 06:22 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 06:23 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 13:54 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 14:01 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 14:16 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 14:29 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 14:58 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 15:22 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 01:50 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (29 Oct 2003 03:06 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:18 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 03:29 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:37 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (29 Oct 2003 06:16 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 14:25 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (30 Oct 2003 02:19 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 04:42 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (30 Oct 2003 06:22 UTC)

Re: A possible solution? Taylor Campbell 30 Oct 2003 21:08 UTC

On Thursday, Oct 30, 2003, at 15:53 US/Eastern, bear wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
>
>> So basically you want to drop all these useful types because they
>> don't
>> exist yet?  That makes so much sense.
>
> You're just trolling here, aren't you?
>
> Things that don't exist aren't useful.  EVER.

Let me rephrase this to mingle the context into the sentence:

'Types such as dictionaries, sets, et cetera specified by SRFI 44 are
never useful because they don't exist _yet_.  They can't possibly be
useful, so they're not even worth considering now!'

Boy, I'm convinced!

> In your little universe, the very *reasons* for different
> collection types to exist are irrelevant, mere "shortcuts".
>
> In your little universe, things that *dont* exist are
> regarded as useful. Useful to whom?  The voices in your
> head?

Useful to the people who intend to use specific implementation-
agnostic code with sets.

> The more I see from you the less confidence I have that
> this process is ever going to produce anything useful.
>
> In fact, I think you're just a usenet troll who has discovered
> a new forum and is gleefully laughing at the shit you're stirring
> up.  You got tired of creating flamewars by crossposting in the
> religion hierarchies and went looking for new kicks, and you
> found a bunch of lisp weenies who had a standardization process
> that was not defended from random trolls and decided you could
> subvert it for your personal enjoyment, didn't you?

Right, and in the process wrote two useful and successful SRFIs, wrote
a Scheme implementation that is probably the most SRFI-compliant one
that exists, et cetera...

> Every time anyone has tried to make anything useful out of the
> abortive mess you've sent us, you've refused the suggestions and
> advice.  Every time someone has pointed out substantial problems
> and documented them incontrovertibly (as Shiro did) you've announced
> that it is not your intent to fix them.  Every time someone has
> given you anything at all that might stop the fight or slow it
> down, you've shat on them.

Gee, didn't you notice that Shiro's comments were actually addressed?

> Enough.  I'm not playing this game any more.  If you're a troll,
> fine.  You've had your fun.  If you're sincere about this, get
> a brain transplant or a clue.

Mmmmm, what a nice, rational argument.

> 				Bear
>