On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> However, I do stand by the notion that past WG ballots >> and intentions are superseded by later discussion. >> This was a community effort with a community ratification, >> and the most recent and specific discussion on the issue >> was in reference to the formal syntax, so I think that should >> take precedence. >> > > That seems reasonable. > > >> If the other two editors disagree you can add it to >> the errata. >> > > Shouldn't it be in the errata in any case since there is a contradiction? > The question is not whether this issue should appear in the errata, but > what conclusion should appear. > Yes. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
