On 2021-06-21 07:16 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> (2) 'fxmapping-alter' is quite a bit more complicated than
> 'fxmapping-update', so if it is easy to add optional failure and success
> continuation to 'fxmapping-update', I'd rather do this then telling people
> to use 'fxmapping-alter' as a substitute.

This makes sense to me.  The current default behavior of `update'
(return the input fxmapping unchanged) comes from the Haskell library
and isn't flexible.

> (3) Should you drop the failure continuations for 'fxmapping-pop-min' and
> 'fxmapping-pop-max' make sure for internal consistency with the rest of
> R7RS that "it is an error" to call it on an empty fxmapping, not that "an
> error is signaled". For R6RS, it would be different.

Good catch!  Thanks.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"All this currying's just a phase, though it seldom hinders."
--Fritz Ruehr