A note on process
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 10:56 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Felix Winkelmann
(06 Jan 2004 11:25 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 11:41 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process Felix Winkelmann (06 Jan 2004 12:39 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 13:10 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Felix Winkelmann
(06 Jan 2004 13:19 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 21:32 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process Felix Winkelmann 06 Jan 2004 12:36 UTC
Am Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:41:31 +0100 hat Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> geschrieben: > > Felix> So why don't put some hard work into getting it right from the > Felix> start? > > In fact, I'm getting *really* annoyed now. *As you know* (having had > advance look at this SRFI months ago), we put some *very* hard work > even in the current draft. I meant: So why don't WE ALL put some hard work into it, by having a (sometimes perhaps overly heated, but nevertheless useful) discussion? I should have worded it more carefully, Sorry. BTW, I was grateful for the advance look, I pointed out several issues, some were addressed, some were not. I was (and still am) very excited about the possibilities of such a SRFI, but from what others have pointed out here, I more and more realize that there are many more problems with the current draft that I initially thought. And I've seen alternatives in this discussion that show how one could do it better. > > Felix> On the other hand, the authors haven't shown much effort to > Felix> address many of the issues others have pointed out, > > Hey, Felix---the thing's been in draft for 2 weeks. Sorry we haven't > addressed "many of the issues" yet. They're complicated, and they're > not nearly as simple as you make them out to be. Most of us have day > jobs. Well, I hope you get find the time to fix it, then. :-P cheers, felix