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/