[I'm not speaking for the editors. Moreover, this post is probably
uninteresting to most readers, and doesn't contribute technical
content to the discussion.]
William D Clinger <will_at_ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>> > Where can we find these stated requirements?
>>
>> The first mention is here:
>>
>> http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2004-November/000371.html
>
> I see no evidence of the community's involvement in
> developing those requirements. They appear to have
> been posited by a single individual,
As requirements formulated via e-mail go, they usually start out being
posted by a single individual, which is why I pointed out the first
place where that happened. You asked where the requirements were
stated, and I answered.
> who also asked the editors to refrain from criticizing requirements
> or design until the proposal was complete. Reading the entire
> thread reinforces that impression.
While this is factually correct, it is missing a lot of context. Most
importantly, the proposal was complete a few months later---about 18
months ago, and plenty of criticism and response and change in
response to those criticisms happened. So I don't quite know what
your point is here.
The editors explicitly decided that SRFIs 79 and 81 should form the
basis of the I/O proposal in the report draft (overriding the concern
voiced by me that the design had not received enough discussion, which
we now know was the case). It seems reasonable to assume that the
requirements formulated in the Abstract sections of those two SRFIs
were part of the agreement.
I am not insisting one those requirements. Moreover, requirements
naturally differ among individual users and implementors. (And I'm
primarily a user in this discussion.)
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Sun Nov 26 2006 - 04:12:31 UTC