-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Michael Burschik" <xxxxxx@lotto-berlin.de> writes:

> Procedures
>
> Are the "%" characters actually supposed to be "*" characters, or did
> I miss something here?

There's this note:

   When % is encountered in the definitions below, the actual name of
   the collection is implied.

so, no, they are not supposed to be `*'.

> Although it is customary not to define the return value of
> destructive functions, the *-remove! functions might return #f or #t
> to indicate whether the collection was actually modified, since
> removing a value that is not present is not defined as an error.

I would say that if you *have* an iterator (and the collection is
mutable), then you have a value that can be removed.  So, IMHO,
sticking with the undefined returned value is correct, and concurs
with most other SRFIs that include destructive ops (except, perhaps
SRFI-1 where these are called linear updates).

(Besides tradition, I've nothing against returning useful values from
destructive ops, though.)

[...]

- --Francisco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE+r95Jq8bN5EAwVqMRArXkAKCEQA4F+xiQOKSFVmvA+uZ+PK0VDACgtvrJ
3w5GWl0QkEjiqH1OY9Ud60c=
=soUl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----