Will wrote:
> Denying the ad hockitude doesn't make it go away.
> [...]
> I therefore raise this as an issue:  Should we choose the
> representatives based on the sign of the second argument,
> as in Egner et al and in SRFI 77, or should we redefine
> div and mod to choose the representatives consistently in
> all cases, and define a second pair of procedures that use
> the second most important choice of representatives?

I would really appreciate if you read my posting before you
repeat parts of it in a rather annoying and personal fashion,
and put them forward as your own inventions.

And, yes, I do understand "Dr. Lucier's objection" and it
is not worth a lot, as I explained.

> The background material you provided will help me to explain
> how little is at stake here to those who are wondering
> what this is about, and I thank you for that.

I see. You are probably right, discussing this with you
is indeed a waste of my time.

Sincerely,

Dr. Egner