[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IF-BODY (Version 5)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Re: IF-BODY (Version 5)
- From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 30 Apr 87 14:53 PDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Wed, 29 Apr 87 16:37 EDT
In the interest of getting this out of our hair, I think we could
release it as is. As a point for future proposals, I would like to
discourage "status quo" alternatives in enhancement proposals, since
every proposal has an implicit "status quo" alternative, and some of the
arguments are redundant. I had expected you would just elaborate in the
Discussions section, but ... whatever ...
Sometimes this process seems so mind-numbingly bureaucratic...