() Tino Calancha <[email protected]> () Thu, 12 May 2016 19:27:22 +0900 (JST)
for your time discussing my report.
I think your arguments are cogent. Could you perhaps reform them
(along w/ a revised patch) in a way that keeps Scheme and drops Lisp;
or reorders those languages to minimize any indication of relationship
between them (such an explicit indication can be made later, or not at
all); or in general, adopts a design that synthesizes your concerns w/
those of GNU?
BTW, i was (in a cranky mood and thus) a bit put off by the patch.
Personally, i prefer a unified diff (although i'm not sure there isn't
a list preference for something else), w/ very few lines changed. In
this case, the source in question is texinfo, so adding line breaks and
avoiding refilling is one way to focus things.
--
Thien-Thi Nguyen -----------------------------------------------
(if you're human and you know it) read my lisp:
(defun responsep (type via)
(case type
(technical (eq 'mailing-list via))
...))
---------------------------------------------- GPG key: 4C807502
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
