-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-11-12 09:26, Per Bothner wrote: > On 11/20/2012 11:43 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> But it's abundantly clear that you don't care. > > I think the point is that while a number of people agree with you > technically that the current eqv? definition is not quite right, > it's late in the R7RS process; there has been too much back and > forth on the issue; and the current solution will have to do for > R7RS: It provides the right answer for almost all implementations > and if it doesn't, just do what you think is right. Perhaps we can > tweak this for an Errata or if not for R8RS.
With all due respect for the hard work of the people doing the hard work, I am quite disappointed with the way an arbitrary deadline seems to have been set and several problems brought up recently (or not so recently brought up but a proposed solution brought up recently) seem to not be getting the attention they deserve because ``there is no time'' to properly consider them. Please don't release with known fixable flaws. Marijn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCt72UACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xNbACfUmPpDG+MOBMC02hEVwXEY4F2 6dcAn3vX5yrbQeYzqsItD77T1Fb0wQot =uZ/p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
