Thanks to John for long work.
So we dropped restart safety (multiple returns from @vector-map) after all? (I thought John's message that he
added explicit language to @vector-map.)
I think in all the checkouts and merges I must have lost some uncommitted changes. Git can be nasty that way. I definitely wrote a sentence like "
If multiple returns
occur from @vector-map, the values returned by earlier returns may be mutated." But I think silence is all right too, since (a) I suspect call/cc into or out of a map procedure is rare — most of them are pure functional, and (b) I think people will expect the efficient approach rather than the theoretically correct one. This follows up on similar silence back to SRFI 43. Even SRFI 1 and R5RS aren't explicit, though R[67]RS are.
So I leave it up to Arthur whether to introduce this sentence as "omitted in error" or not.