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

Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate

To: William D Clinger <will@x>
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
From: "Arthur A. Gleckler" <scheme@x>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:39:18 -0700
Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
In-reply-to: <CALnw4LKWt+8niLvhO=ct5aj-HnK-z0MWROyBE_w+WSHVw26FBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6396504.2289381370360900956.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <15670151.2289411370361012620.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <CALnw4LKWt+8niLvhO=ct5aj-HnK-z0MWROyBE_w+WSHVw26FBQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Arthur A. Gleckler <scheme@x> wrote:

Please forgive me if the answers are obvious. I want to make absolutely clear that the debate is clear.

"absolutely clear" => "absolutely certain"

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

References:
- [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
  - From: will@x
- Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
  - From: "Arthur A. Gleckler" <scheme@x>

Prev by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
Next by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
Previous by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
Next by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread