Peter Bex scripsit: > I always thought it unfortunate that the SRFI process doesn't allow/require > authors to provide a public statement with the reason for withdrawal. > Instead, you have to go digging through the mail archives for the > possible reason that the standard was withdrawn.
Indeed. And in this case there are 471 message in the archive which if printed would amount to 927 pages. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. --Isaac Newton _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
