> xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
>> This is a fallacious argument .... Then define it in another SRFI ....
>> You have made some dire warnings without evidence ....

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> See, you're still not listening. You're still too busy rationalizing
> why it's OK to ignore these issues. If you're going to brush off
> detailed analyses as "not evidence," what's the point in making them
> anymore? Have fun with your design doc -- I'm outta here.

OK, my apologies for the outburst. I was angry, because you
misrepresented my position on the need for full implementation again.
I'm trying to tell you that we need more experience with the interface
to verify that it's good. I'm not claiming that it *isn't* good, but
only that its quality is currently *unknown*. That doesn't make it bad,
but it does make it immature, and the SRFI process is specifically
supposed to discourage immature implementations.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd