Re: when GC is permitted Richard Kelsey (10 Jan 2004 21:14 UTC)
Re: when GC is permitted Richard Kelsey 10 Jan 2004 21:14 UTC
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:57:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Lord <firstname.lastname@example.org>
So I think it is an abuse -- albeit a kind of abuse the SRFI process
explicitly declines to prohibit -- when authors say (and I'm not
certain that this is what you're saying but it's sure looking that
way): "Consensus doesn't matter for this SRFI. My goal is to have a
finalized SRFI with essentially the same content as my draft. Your
objections are interesting but contradict my goal: I guess we just
have to agree to disagree."
No, that is not at all what I was trying to say. I'll try again.
At this point I can see four different ways of proceeding:
(A) Rewrite SRFI-50 using either Pika-style or JNI-style
during the SRFI discussion period
(B) Address as many of the issues that have been raised as is
possible while leaving SRFI-50's style intact
(C) Withdraw SRFI-50 from consideration until after there
is separate SRFI describing a more general and more
(D) Withdraw SRFI-50 permanently
(A) is not possible because time is too short. It took Mike
and I a long time to produce the original SRFI-50 draft and
that was after an even longer period working on and using the
original implementation. I have much less experience with
JNI-style and none at all with Pika-style.
(B) would be my choice, especially because I think that we
could now come up with a much better characterization of what
SRFI-50 is and is not intended for than exists in the
I very much doubt that any amount of additional discussion would
switch my preference to (D).
So what I want to know, in an attempt to locate some consensus,
is whether the folks that have been objecting to SRFI-50 in
its current form would be happy (or at least significantly less
unhappy) with (C).