On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, srfi.schemers.org mailing list <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:


    (vector-stable-sort > (vector 9 8 6 3 0 4 2 5 7 1) 2 6)
    => #(6 4 3 0 0 4 2 5 7 1)
    instead of #(6 3 0 4)

    ...

Don't you mean #(6 4 3 0) ?
 
 
    (let ((v (vector 9 8 6 3 0 4 2 5 7 1)))
    (vector-stable-sort! > v 2 6)
    v)
    => #(6 4 3 0 0 4 2 5 7 1)
    instead of #(9 8 6 3 0 4 2 5 7 1)

...and don't you mean #(9 8 6 4 3 0 2 5 7 1)  ?


I applaud you for finding those errors in the doc about "returns an unspecified value" and in finding these sample-implementation bugs.

I agree that a sample implementation should be a "correct" implementation.   I also think that any new sample implementation code produced today should easily drop in to a conforming R7RS implementation and just work without changes.