Comments on SRFI 69
David Van Horn
(11 Aug 2005 14:38 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
Panu Kalliokoski
(12 Aug 2005 09:28 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
Panu Kalliokoski
(12 Aug 2005 09:53 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69 felix winkelmann (12 Aug 2005 12:06 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
David Van Horn
(12 Aug 2005 19:09 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
felix winkelmann
(12 Aug 2005 20:12 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
David Van Horn
(12 Aug 2005 20:29 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
felix winkelmann
(12 Aug 2005 20:35 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69 felix winkelmann 12 Aug 2005 12:06 UTC
On 8/11/05, David Van Horn <xxxxxx@cs.brandeis.edu> wrote: >[...] I don't want to waste my or anybopdy else's time with a long-winded discussion about the adequacy of this SRFI, but I'd like to point out that this SRFI covers common hash-table pretty well. I also find the names well chosen, and conflicts with existing implementations can not be avoided. As Shiro's cross-reference shows, there is a common naming pattern, and Panu has (AFAICT) tried to follow that pattern. BTW, I don't think it makes sense to drag SRFI-44 into this discussion. Since no Scheme system supports it (to my knowledge), it's importance can currently be neglected. Another thing that surprises me is that your comments come so late in the draft period. As the editor of this SRFI, you have the right to reject proposals, or at least discuss basic problems with the author. So, to get to the point... GO, PANU, GO! cheers, felix