SRFI 125, 126
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Feb 2016 18:36 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125, 126
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(01 Feb 2016 22:34 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125, 126
John Cowan
(02 Feb 2016 19:54 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125, 126
Arthur A. Gleckler
(03 Feb 2016 01:05 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125, 126 John Cowan (07 Feb 2016 04:40 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125, 126
Alex Shinn
(04 Feb 2016 05:09 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125, 126
John Cowan
(04 Feb 2016 05:58 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125, 126 John Cowan 07 Feb 2016 04:40 UTC
Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit: > It's a reasonable idea, and I'd be happy to do it, but we'll need to figure > out what happens if non-trivial changes are made during the last-call > period. Do we reset from the last-call state to the draft state rather > than moving to the final state? And how do we decide what's non-trivial? My general idea is that non-trivial changes should be affected, where the definition of trivial changes includes both editorial corrections (typos, unclarities, broken examples) and featurectomies whether righteous or reluctant. So the removal of with-hash-salt that I just did on SRFI 128 would be the kind of change supported after Last Call, whereas adding it back would not be. More subtle changes, like removing an argument to a procedure, would require case-by-case judgments. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org 'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.' --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake