Re: [Scheme-reports] ratification vote for r7rs-small

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

gjs@x scripsit:

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