Group Email Manager

login signup
the discussion so far Matthew Flatt (16 Jul 2005 12:41 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: the discussion so far bear (20 Jul 2005 02:45 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 03:56 UTC)
(missing)
Re: the discussion so far Alex Shinn (20 Jul 2005 02:50 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 02:56 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Alex Shinn (20 Jul 2005 03:15 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 03:24 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Alex Shinn (20 Jul 2005 03:38 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 03:49 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 04:24 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 04:27 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 04:58 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 05:04 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Jorgen Schaefer (16 Jul 2005 13:05 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Matthew Flatt (16 Jul 2005 13:21 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Jorgen Schaefer (16 Jul 2005 13:58 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (17 Jul 2005 02:42 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (17 Jul 2005 02:57 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Jorgen Schaefer (17 Jul 2005 03:33 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far bear (16 Jul 2005 18:07 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (17 Jul 2005 04:49 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (17 Jul 2005 02:40 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Alex Shinn 20 Jul 2005 03:14 UTC 
On 7/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> wrote:
>
> Neither.  We let Scheme systems decide; some systems will prefer
> incompatibility and correctness, some systems will prefer backwards
> compatibility.  This is as it should be.

If you want R5RS, you know where to find it.

The whole point of this entire discussion is standardization.
If you're not interested in even trying to come up with a standard,
why are you here?

--
Alex