On 8/11/05, David Van Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[...]
I don't want to waste my or anybopdy else's time with a long-winded discussion about the adequacy of this SRFI, but I'd like to point out that this SRFI covers common hash-table pretty well. I also find the names well chosen, and conflicts with existing implementations can not be avoided. As Shiro's cross-reference shows, there is a common naming pattern, and Panu has (AFAICT) tried to follow that pattern. 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. 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. So, to get to the point... GO, PANU, GO! cheers, felix
