On 12/2/23 08:00, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 3:04 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I don’t think this is relevant, unless ‘wrong-headed approach to the
problem’ includes approaches to procedural as well as technical issues. If
Sergei had made his proposal on the SRFI 245 list and was unsatisfied by the
response, he could still have submitted his own SRFI with his own approach to
the problem. As it is, this proposal was sprung on us as a separate, competing
SRFI out of nowhere.
I don't understand this response to SRFI 251. I understand objecting on
technical grounds, although I will take off my editor's hat for the rest of
this sentence and say, for a moment, that I find the proposal perfectly
reasonable and, in some ways, more natural in that it matches the experience at
the REPL.
Furthermore, with my editor's hat back on, there is nothing wrong with
submitting a SRFI as a counterproposal to another, and it's especially
reasonable to do so while a competing proposal is in its last-call period.
That's exactly when one wants a clear, well-documented argument for the
opposing position, not just a simple comment in the discussion. Yes, it is a
surprise, but it is a completely reasonable one.
If Arthur hadn't written this, I would have chimed in with the same sentiment
(if
not as eloquent) - even though I strongly prefer 245 to 251.
--
--Per Bothner
[email protected] http://per.bothner.com/
