Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!]

Show/hide message thread

Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Jul 2023 03:22 UTC)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jul 2023 12:08 UTC)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Bradley Lucier (09 Jul 2023 16:01 UTC)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Jul 2023 16:52 UTC)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] John Cowan (09 Jul 2023 19:43 UTC)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Jul 2023 19:49 UTC)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Bradley Lucier (09 Jul 2023 20:00 UTC)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Jul 2023 00:08 UTC)
(missing)
Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Arthur A. Gleckler (14 Jul 2023 18:07 UTC)

Re: Document and implementation disagree on argument order for char-set-unfold[!] Bradley Lucier 09 Jul 2023 19:59 UTC

On 7/9/23 3:48 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> Is this better than adding an erratum and changing the signature?

I vote for adding an erratum and changing the signature.