[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] ratification vote for r7rs-small
- To: gjs@x
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] ratification vote for r7rs-small
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 16:19:11 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <E1UYiJG-0000n2-Ux@gjs-x1>
- References: <email@example.com> <E1UYiJG-0000n2-Ux@gjs-x1>
> The report seems good to me, but please note my very serious objection
> to the semantics of identity of procedures. I hope that no system
> makes significant use of that unnecessary freedom.
Unfortunately, this is not a formal vote; indeed, it's not clear if it's
"yes" or "no". I can say that I will be filing a formal objection with
the Steering Committee in the names of J. Cowan, G. Sussman, A. Shinn,
J. Boyle, A. Hsu, A. Gleckler, A. Snell-Pym, U. T. Cobley and all.
I should think that will be weighty enough to convince them to let us
change the draft after the plebiscite.
We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do, John Cowan <cowan@x>
What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must;
Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust. --Bokonon
Scheme-reports mailing list