On 2/11/26 16:47, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> On 2/10/26 12:57, Bradley J Lucier wrote:
>>> On Feb 10, 2026, at 12:09, Bradley J Lucier <xxxxxx@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 2026, at 01:28, Peter McGoron <xxxxxx@mcgoron.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would it be better to describe the multi-index as a proper list of
>>>> exact
>>>> integers?
>>> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a multi-index is not
>>> reified as a Scheme object, but conceptually is a sequence of zero or
>>> more exact integers, which may be returned by (values …).
>>>
>>> Brad
>> And instead of saying that an interval “contains” multi-indices, one
>> should say that it specifies or determines multi-indices.
>>
>> Brad
>
> I thought it would be good to add a small Terminology section near the
> top of the document to really lay out the terms I'm using.  I came up
> with this as a first draft.  It converted the MathJax-formatted LaTeX to
> HTML, so it's a bit rough.
>
> Comments and suggestions welcome.
>
> Brad

And my mail client turned it into plain text.

The document with the new terminology section is here:

https://github.com/gambiteer/srfi-231/blob/231-bis/srfi-231.html

I looked at it with

https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://github.com/gambiteer/srfi-231/blob/231-bis/srfi-231.html

but it didn't render the MathJax.

Brad