felix winkelmann wrote:
> As Shiro's
> cross-reference shows, there is a common naming pattern, and Panu has
> (AFAICT) tried to follow that pattern.

I don't know what you're referring to here.  Are you referring to something
within the document?  Or something within the discussion archive?

> 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.

This is irrelevant.  SRFI 44 outlines a consistent naming scheme and set of
operators and semantics that future data structure specifications may follow.
  The SRFI states only that it does not follow these conventions.  My question
is *why*?  What improvement is made by not following these conventions?  These
questions should be answered in a section of the document that discusses this
SRFIs relation to others.  The answer "SRFI 44 is not important" does not
explain why these names are an improvement.  (And even if it did, this is not
in the document).

> 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.

The document meets the structural requirements of the SRFI process document;
there were, and still are, no grounds for rejecting the document.  These are
my personal comments, which I intended to be helpful.  I apologize they didn't
come sooner in the discussion period.

David