On 12/5/22 12:50 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>
> Someone should cross-check division.txt against the SRFI text.  to make
> sure there are no other such accidental discrepancies.  Special scrutiny
> should be given to the "balanced" procedures, which are not present in
> division.txt, but correspond to the R6RS div0, mod0, and div-and-mod0
> procedures.

I'm not a great proofreader, but I compared the SRFI document to
Taylor's original.

Typos:

1.  First paragraph of specification, change

"Each division operator pair is specified by defining the quotient q in
terms of the numerator a and the denominator n."

to

"Each division operator pair is specified by defining the quotient q in
terms of the numerator n and the denominator d."

2.  In discussion of ceiling/, etc., change <numerator> to italic
"numerator".

3.  In discussion of truncate/, etc., the sentence

  However, by any non-unit denominator, the quotient of +1, 0, or -1 is
0; that is, three contiguous numerators by a common denominator share a
common quotient.

is clumsy at best, confusing at worst.  Perhaps

With the truncate operator pair, the quotient of +1, 0, or -1 by any
non-unit denominator is 0; that is, three contiguous numerators divided
by a common denominator share a common quotient.

That's all I got.

Brad