|
Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 07:45 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 08:06 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 12:49 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Arthur A. Gleckler
(27 Jul 2020 17:16 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Jul 2020 19:22 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Arthur A. Gleckler
(27 Jul 2020 19:33 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Jul 2020 19:45 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 20:03 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Jul 2020 20:17 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections Lassi Kortela (27 Jul 2020 20:31 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 19:48 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 20:23 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Jul 2020 22:58 UTC)
|
||
> schemeregistry is right in the "Subject:" line! > > While it's indeed dry and bureaucratic, it's very, if not > *perfectly* descriptive for registering the existence, and > basic characteristics any sort of Scheme artifact below > the levels that are already being handled like Scheme > standards and SRFIs. You're right - it is descriptive. Given your arguments, I'm fine with it. Maybe it's even better than id or ids.
