I've now incorporated all the editorial issues from that posting.  (I had done it before, but for some reason that update got lost.)

As for fl+*, I have taken the following steps:

1) I have corrected the definitions of fl+* and fl-fast-fl+*.

2) I have added more emphatic language to the top of the Specifications section pointing out that the definitions of C99-equivalent procedures are informative only, and that one must consult the C99 or Posix standards for precise definitions.

However, I do not see any reason to use the name flfma, which IMO is much less clear than fl+*.  The same applies to all the other procedures with C equivalents: it's better to have Scheme-ish names for them for use in Scheme.

You said that the procedures in the Accessors section don't match their C definitions.  I think they do now, but I would appreciate a cross-check.

--