The base document for SRFI 141 is < https://mumble.net/~campbell/tmp/division.txt>, which indeed specifies in these sentences that r is nonzero. I don't know why or how that dropped out during my edits, so this PR is correct.
Someone should cross-check division.txt against the SRFI text. to make sure there are no other such accidental discrepancies. Special scrutiny should be given to the "balanced" procedures, which are not present in division.txt, but correspond to the R6RS div0, mod0, and div-and-mod0 procedures. On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 4:33 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]> wrote: > John, would you mind taking a look at this? In light of recent > discussions about changing the meaning of finalized SRFIs, I want to make > sure that you agree that this is a clear case of inconsistent wording, and > that we're not somehow changing the meaning of the SRFI. > > Thanks. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 1:28 PM Bradley Lucier <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/1/22 9:49 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote: >> > On 11/29/22 5:45 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote: >> >> >> >> Would someone be willing to submit a pull request for discussion? >> > >> > Done. >> > >> >> The pull request: >> >> https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-141/pull/1 >> >> Brad >> >
