Re: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1601

From: John Havlicek <john.havlicek_at_.....>
Date: Sun Nov 04 2007 - 08:50:20 PST

Hi Dmitry:

> since 1549 has passed, I think that this proposal should be written
> unconditionally relative to 1549.

One of Lisa's points was that 1549 could still be rejected
by Champions and by P1800 WG.

J.H.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Received on Sun Nov 4 08:50:40 2007

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: John Havlicek: "Re: [sv-ac] 1678 name resolution and the rewriting algorithm of 1549"
Previous message: John Havlicek: "Re: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1648"
In reply to: Korchemny, Dmitry: "RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1601"
Next in thread: Lisa Piper: "RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1601"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 04 2007 - 08:50:56 PST