Am Sa., 2. Dez. 2023 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler < [email protected]>:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 3:04 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <[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. > I think the point is that - even though everything has happened procedurally correctly - this form of reacting to a SRFI *can* be perceived as not a nice thing to do (in German, we say "nicht die feine englische Art"). SRFI 251 certainly didn't *have* to come as a surprise. This is just my observation (subjectively perceived, of course) as an outsider; I am not saying that anyone did anything wrong.
