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 and intentions are superseded by later discussion.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.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
