John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> writes:

| On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:25 AM Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

| 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.

I've added a version of it.  You agreed
to add it earlier, so "omitted in error"
is definitely true.

John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> writes:

| Thanks, please add that and Arthur, please fix.
|
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:37 AM Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
|
|  Also, @vector-unfold! and
|  @vector-unfold-right! seem to be
|  added at the last minute and not
|  accompanied by reference
|  implementation.  I can make PR for
|  that, too.  BTW, the second argument
|  of these two procedures in srfi
|  document are supposed to be '@vec'
|  rather than 'vec'.

I've changed those and several other
places to use "@vec", too.  I also made
a small grammar fix.

I'm always amazed that I miss things
like these on a careful reading before
finalization.  Ugh.

Will you both please review the changes
before I mark them as part of an
official errata change?:

  <https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-160/compare/f09de3cb9376897bd0ba3df0c1cf4cbdf72056ca..f10064ebbb52e05ec881a8893ea097e15271fc3e>

Thanks to you both.