bear wrote:
>
>>
>>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.

I don't disagree with this. But whether SRFI-7 is implementable or
not is not the point here. The point is that there are (IMHO) better
and more convenient ways of handling the issue of making SRFI
functionality available to user code.

> 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 do understand the arguments, I just don't find the convincing enough.

>
> 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.

No? Damn. It's so much fun to be sarcastic!

cheers,
felix