SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
Sudarshan S Chawathe
(07 May 2016 21:13 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
Sudarshan S Chawathe
(07 May 2016 21:38 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
Per Bothner
(07 May 2016 22:12 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
John Cowan
(08 May 2016 02:17 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
John Cowan
(08 May 2016 17:48 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(09 May 2016 07:03 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments John Cowan (09 May 2016 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
Arthur A. Gleckler
(09 May 2016 20:25 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 May 2016 15:49 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments John Cowan 09 May 2016 20:13 UTC
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit: > How do I atone for this? There is no official errata process for SRFIs, > is there? It's a nontrivial change, too. There are already errata for 121, 127, and 133. My opinion is that this is on the same scale as those are, especially 127. In each case the Status paragraph notes the existence of an erratum. Art? -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org With techies, I've generally found If your arguments lose the first round Make it rhyme, make it scan / Then you generally can Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie