|
SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 18:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through Daphne Preston-Kendal (10 Dec 2022 18:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 18:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(10 Dec 2022 20:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 20:57 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 21:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 22:09 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 22:27 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
John Cowan
(10 Dec 2022 21:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 22:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 22:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Dec 2022 02:54 UTC)
|
On 10 Dec 2022, at 19:44, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote: > What's the right way to solve this problem? Would it be reasonable to add a sentence saying that this paragraph should not be construed to mean that SRFI 128 or 162 should export the new identifiers — that only if the bindings in 128 and/or 126 are built into the implementation should SRFI 228's identifiers also be built in? That was the original intention of that paragraph. Daphne
