-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 21-11-12 09:26, Per Bothner wrote:With all due respect for the hard work of the people doing the hard
> On 11/20/2012 11:43 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> But it's abundantly clear that you don't care.
> I think the point is that while a number of people agree with you
> technically that the current eqv? definition is not quite right,
> it's late in the R7RS process; there has been too much back and
> forth on the issue; and the current solution will have to do for
> R7RS: It provides the right answer for almost all implementations
> and if it doesn't, just do what you think is right. Perhaps we can
> tweak this for an Errata or if not for R8RS.
work, I am quite disappointed with the way an arbitrary deadline seems
to have been set and several problems brought up recently (or not so
recently brought up but a proposed solution brought up recently) seem
to not be getting the attention they deserve because ``there is no
time'' to properly consider them.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports