xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr.  Preprocessor]) writes:

   That's reasonable, but I, personally don't.

here's your chance to design a process that other people can use.

   - A unique naming scheme can serve its function

	if

     it's formulated in the context of a fixed set of proposals,
     effectively forming a library collection.  Ideally, this collection
     would be comprehensive in some sense of the word.  Presently, in
     almost any sense of the word, the collection that would result from
     the current SRFI set is not comprehensive.

i isolated the bad word here.  "ideally" is also tempting, but "if" wins
by precedence.  it seems to me that predicating "usefulness" on vague
notions of hypothetical completeness means nothing can ever be deemed
useful.  the fix is to simplify your evaluation function (but not back
to the status quo ;-).

     assuming that we accumulate more wisdom with time, and, therefore,
     better proposals.

there's a supermarket around here called ranch-99.  when someone asks me
where to get (really smelly) fish sauce i tell them its name.

communication happens foremost so that people don't starve.  to the
hungry, any scrap will do, even if it's smelly and even if it's not
solid food (but it has to be more than air).  i've heard the stone soup
fable, and have to wonder: are all these vegetative hints missing the
pot somehow?

thi