On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, felix wrote:

>xxxxxx@autodrip.bloodandcoffee.net wrote:

>> stone, I can still argue against it and attempt to change it.  SRFIs 0
>> & 55 _force_ the fracturing: Scheme48 _can't_help_it_; all it _can_ do
>> is ignore them.  You're trying to accuse Scheme48 of fracturing itself,
>> but _you_ are in fact creating the fracture!
>
>I'm not trying to accuse Scheme48 of anything, I just wanted to show
>that the argument of "fracturing" that you brought up can be applied
>to Scheme48 (or better, the authors of SRFI-7) just as well.
>
>Remember, it's you who started the whole "fracturing" issue.

You are, I think, wrong here.  SRFI-7 doesn't force a fracture;
there is no system for which SRFI-7 is impossible to implement.
This indicates to me that you're not even attempting to understand
the arguments, and bodes very badly for your ability to make a valid
point in response to them.

I realize that I'm often one of the people who fails in this ideal,
but insofar as possible, let's talk about facts, or even opinions,
rather than mere attitude.  The kind of rhetoric in which you're
engaging here (in sarcasm toward the (truly) bright and foresightful
people who disagree with you) has no place in a technical discussion.

				Bear