Re: SRFI 129: 90 days John Cowan (29 Feb 2016 03:21 UTC)
Re: SRFI 129: 90 days John Cowan 29 Feb 2016 03:21 UTC
Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit:
> This is just a reminder that SRFI 129 reaches the end of its
> extended ninety-day discussion period today. (It was first
> published on 30 Nov 2015.) The discussion can go on, but in
> theory, the longest extension is supposed to be to ninety
I'm requesting LAST CALL and then finalization after a week, unless
something comes up.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
Almost all theorems are true, but almost all proofs have bugs.