This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Aubrey has a point here. The tradition to which you refer has not >> historically included so-called "error objects". > > There is no reason to treat them specially in this regard. Please keep track of the discussion. It is an explanation of why your appeal to tradition is ill-founded; the tradition actually points the opposite way. What gives here? Was the traditional practice just fine when you thought it supported you, and when it doesn't it should simply be ignored as giving "no reason"? Thomas