On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Matthew D Swank wrote:

> Fair enough, but the difference in the implementation code is subtle
> enough to look like a typo.

I agree.  This has confused others also, probably mostly because of the
unfortunate choice of calling the second CONTENT by the same name as the first.
If I were to write this again, I would either call it something like

   possibly-updated-content-of-original-promise

for clarity, or insist on including the comments that are in SRFI-45 in the
distribution.

Regards
Andre