[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(Released?)Issue: DEFPACKAGE (Version 7)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: (Released?)Issue: DEFPACKAGE (Version 7)
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 88 04:06:27 PST
- Cc: barmar@Think.COM, CL-CLEANUP@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM's message of 9 Dec 88 17:42 PST <881209-174354-1798@Xerox>
I don't think we should stir the pot on this one. "Release" to X3J13
ought to have a more permanent status than merely "Draft, for discussion"
in the subcommittee. Version 7 had been stable in subcommittee for nearly
a month when you "released" it. Subcommittee members had ample opportunity
to comment upon it during that time.
Members of the full committee will no doubt have commentary on all of
the issues; I strongly suggest *not* flooding them with the volume of
disucssion, re-hashing, etc that has been commonplace for the past
several months on the cl-cleanup list. Only when there are "egregious"
errors should there be need for emmendations of "released" issues.
Especially I think we ought to wait on this question -- to see if many
more committee members are as confused as Barry has been about what the
words "undefined" and "at variance" mean in the proposal.
-- JonL --