Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:

> I think this would in fact encourage more casual users if they
> get a passing score - they'd have more confidence that they
> weren't missing the big issues or making a stupid assumption.

i'm in favor of a "quiz" but in the other direction: for the SRFI
authors.  kind of like "stump the expert if you can".  the end
result (of stumping the author w/ a question like: can your SRFI
do THIS?) is better specification, if the SRFI can be amended in
light of the findings from the quiz (possibly post-finalization).

this is better than validating the inevitable stabs in the dark
that casual users make.  the end result of that is superstition
among some (who pass), confusion among others (who don't), and
continuing ignorance among the rest (who didn't partake of the
quiz but only the SRFI).

in short: feedback mechanisms good; the more upstream the better.

thi