While you are updating SRFI 64, could you also correct one thing in the sample implementation?
The first cond-expand's else clause contains an empty application (), which is the only thing that makes testing.scm non-conforming to R7RS.
For R7RS-compliance, it would be enough to remove the ().
Marc
Oops ... Thanks, Mathieu!
On 08/04/2016 10:24 AM, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> Hello, Per. What do you think about updating SRFI 64 with an erratum notice for the issue described below?
I don't know how you want to do it. The attached patch is one suggestion.
(I think it is important to actually fix the example in-place, rather than just a note
at the beginning of the specification, which can easily be missed.)
--
--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/