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? Thanks. John Cowan <email@example.com> 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".