Marijn Haverbeke <mari...@gmail.com> writes: >> I don't understand how is simple-date supposed to be loaded now. Just >> loading postmodern doesn't seem to be sufficient anymore. Should it be >> loaded explicitly? > > Yes. (And it has been like this for a long time.) It was intended like this? Because before dfb9da112410ccc60d92d7bc8ce0c1efb41b6e9e loading postmodern loaded simple-date too. Anyway, I'm happy with either way, as long as it's deterministic.
-- With best regards, Stas. _______________________________________________ postmodern-devel mailing list postmodern-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postmodern-devel
