Re: PDD 4: Internal data types

[Bryan C. Warnock]

On Thursday 08 March 2001 11:43, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> It probably ought to be left undefined, in case we switch implementations
> later.

Er, except, aren't you (we) supposed to be defining the implementation?  
I thought the hand-waving period was over, and we're doing specifications.  
If there's something bogus in there, then we re-specify, not continually 
defer.

-- 
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]