Wait, the examples are still wrong, for they give only two arguments. (I wasn't clear enough; it's not just the procedure name is incorrect, the examples themselves are incorrect and need to be rewritten.)

If John's busy, I can come up some examples and submit a PR.

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

I've just published fixes for errata for SRFI 151. They
have been approved by the author, John Cowan, so I have
incorporated them into the public document and added a note
to the Status section.

Thanks to Shiro Kawai for reporting these.

Here's a description:

- The examples under bit-field-any? and bit-field-every?
showed any-bit-set? and every-bit-set?.

- test-227 in chibi-test.scm and chicken-test.scm tested
(bits->list -1 128), but the final srfi didn't allow
negative integers in the first argument of bits->list.

Here's the diff:

<https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-151/commit/7fd6ceb07b92272fb12fb59d8b208ae586b8e95f>

— SRFI Editor
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=g4qkhP7wQv7YRpNF2PegOQ3XgjU718gZ