Re: Bug in documentation for eq? ?

[Andy Wingo]

On Wed 20 Jun 2012 17:16, David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Whatever.  It is quite clear that you can't be bothered with caring
> about sane semantics when the standard gives you a free pass.
>
> Forget I asked.  I don't see the point in further serving as a target
> for pseudointellectual mockery.

I am sorry to have to say this, but please do not post to this list any
more.  Thank you in advance.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/