[imp-hackers] LOOP non-compliance

[Stas Boukarev]

Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Then let all implementations to agree on a change.
>>
>
> Ok, let's do it, here, right now.
>
> Now, seriously, do you expect to develop _in a mailing list_, the next LOOP
> implementation? Perfectly compatible with the standard, the new semantics
> is not disruptive, and with the same detail of specification?
So, where do you propose to do it? It's not the new implementation of
LOOP, it's what all implementations have been doing for years, until
somebody read the spec more carefully.

> No time for that right now, thanks.
When there will be time?

-- 
With best regards, Stas.