Alex Shinn scripsit:
I have no problem with that, and have been doing it.
> This seems problematic - people are never really sure if they're
> working on a WG2 SRFI or not. Although I think it's good to use the
> SRFI process it should be made clear that the SRFI is intended for
> WG2, which should draw a larger audience.
> and stating the motivation for including it in the large language.What would this consist of? Something should go in the large language
because it seems useful for practical Scheme programs. That's a rather
> The default draft period in this case should be extended to 4 monthsI have no desire to try to amend the SRFI process at this point. In
> (of course extendible so long as there is active discussion).
practice, extensions have been easily achieved. I really don't want
there to be too much time, such that all sense of momentum is lost.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports