On 2021-06-26 13:46 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Of course, you are right that the wording is not 100% precise. The same is
> true for the notion of "first-class continuations" which alone also do not
> form non-local control flow. One has to *call* them. Similarly, exceptions
> are just objects. They only take part in non-local control flow when they
> are *raised* and *handled*.

I agree with John that the current wording is a little odd.
Would the following rephrasing be acceptable?

"The procedures in this SRFI must fully support non-local flow
control, e.g. as created by exception-handling or invocation of
continuations.  In particular, if multiple returns occur ... "

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

"Every sufficiently good analogy is yearning to become
a functor." --John Baez