[scheme-reports-wg2] Re: [Scheme-reports] DISCUSSION/VOTE: The character tower John Cowan (08 May 2014 22:22 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] DISCUSSION/VOTE: The character tower Sascha Ziemann (07 May 2014 08:16 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] DISCUSSION/VOTE: The character tower Per Bothner (08 May 2014 01:35 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] DISCUSSION/VOTE: The character tower Alaric Snell-Pym (08 May 2014 12:22 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] DISCUSSION/VOTE: The character tower Jussi Piitulainen (08 May 2014 05:36 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] DISCUSSION/VOTE: The character tower Shiro Kawai (06 May 2014 21:04 UTC)

[scheme-reports-wg2] Re: [Scheme-reports] DISCUSSION/VOTE: The character tower John Cowan 08 May 2014 22:22 UTC

Bear scripsit:

> This goes well beyond "not like the specification" - this
> is into the realm of "apparently do not comprehend the basic
> values informing the specification."

The basic value in question is to standardize what the _maior et
sanior pars_ of Scheme implementations (to say nothing of non-Scheme
implementations) actually do.

> I think that forbidding the bug fix is incomprehensible,
> and must reveal some agenda or value completely alien to
> my whole way of thinking. Therefore I don't believe that
> I am capable of meaningfully contributing to a discussion
> of these strings.

Well, stick around; other issues will be taken up here.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your ear.  However, I would
suggest you wash your hands thoroughly before going to the toilet.
        --gadicath

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scheme-reports-wg2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scheme-reports-wg2+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.