On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, felix wrote:

> The wonderful thing about the SRFI process is that it allows
> variety, where different designs can compete by "letting the
> market decide" (so to speak), i.e. one can look how well
> a SRFI gets accepted or not accepted. I don't think finalized SRFIs
> are standards as such, I think David Rush called it "feeder process"
> for real standardization (like R6RS, which is currently forming).

The problem is that a portion of the 'market' _CANNOT_ have a voice in
this decision; it's only the part of the market that _you_already_
_agree_with_ that's going into the decision-making!

The idea that you're using is 'let's just try this thing that I happen
to prefer because it saves some keystrokes, and since lots of people
already use it, it must be good.'  Do you see any reference at all to
technical merit here?  I don't.