[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic

To: Per Bothner <per@x>
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
From: "Arthur A. Gleckler" <scheme@x>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:44:20 -0800
Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
In-reply-to: <50B2DEF4.5000001@bothner.com>
References: <50B28436.3080006@bothner.com> <20121126011254.GL23962@mercury.ccil.org> <50B2DEF4.5000001@bothner.com>

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Per Bothner <per@x> wrote:

I can't find the definitions of Formal Comment vs Formal Objections.
I don't think this issue is a "charter violation or otherwise
seriously threatens the ratification of the seventh draft."

The best source is http://scheme-reports.org/2009/working-group-1-charter.html.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
  - From: Per Bothner <per@x>

References:
- [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
  - From: Per Bothner <per@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
  - From: Per Bothner <per@x>

Prev by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
Next by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Inexact numbers and `eqv?`: the post I didn't want to make
Previous by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
Next by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread