Fwd: Erratum for SRFI 1 Arthur A. Gleckler 26 Jul 2016 22:38 UTC

Hi, Olin.  Would you mind if we fixed the erratum described
below in SRFI 1?


John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

| There is a long-standing bug in the SRFI 1 specification
| that couldn't be fixed because we didn't have an erratum
| process.  The definitions of `any`, `every`, and
| `list-index` specify that the predicates must return a
| boolean result, i.e. `#t` or `#f`.  This has never been
| the case: all known implementations accept ordinary
| predicates that can return any object other than `#f` to
| mean "true".  The words "and returning a boolean result"
| should be removed from each definition.
| Here's a paragraph for the Status section:
| Erratum: The procedures `any`, `every`, and `list-index`
| accept predicates that can return any value other than
| `#f` to represent "true".