[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
- Subject: procedural, errors.
- From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 9 Jun 87 17:31 PDT
- Cc: email@example.com
I spoke with Kent on the telephone yesterday. Briefly:
Kent will present ignore-errors. He can chose whether he wants to report
it out of the cleanup committee, the error committee, or both, but it
will be go out "under separate cover" so that it is at least apparent
that the error committee approves it.
It turns out that I didn't in fact make any unannounced edits to any
proposals. The wording that upset Kent was the inclusion of the phrase
"including NIL" in KEYWORD-ARGUMENT-NAME-PACKAGE, but the wording was
there (exactly) in the version that got voted on. However, when I fixed
up the line breaks, Kent's source compare didn't work.
So perhaps there weren't any gratuitous and unrecorded changes, although
I admit there were a flurry of hurried ones. In any case, your concerns
have been noted, and I will redouble efforts to avoid any in the future.
I would like to start pipelining proposals out to X3J13, starting with
the ones that have had no discussion for quite a while. The messages to
X3J13 will be careful to say whether the committee voted on the exact
version or some previous one; if there's any doubt, I'll double check
with this mailing list first.
I expect that mail to X3J13 may generate some discussion, questions,
etc. We may want to be prepared to make slight revisions.