Thanks! On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 1:25 PM Bradley Lucier <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/5/22 12:50 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > > > 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. > > I'm not a great proofreader, but I compared the SRFI document to > Taylor's original. > > Typos: > > 1. First paragraph of specification, change > > "Each division operator pair is specified by defining the quotient q in > terms of the numerator a and the denominator n." > > to > > "Each division operator pair is specified by defining the quotient q in > terms of the numerator n and the denominator d." > > 2. In discussion of ceiling/, etc., change <numerator> to italic > "numerator". > > 3. In discussion of truncate/, etc., the sentence > > However, by any non-unit denominator, the quotient of +1, 0, or -1 is > 0; that is, three contiguous numerators by a common denominator share a > common quotient. > > is clumsy at best, confusing at worst. Perhaps > > With the truncate operator pair, the quotient of +1, 0, or -1 by any > non-unit denominator is 0; that is, three contiguous numerators divided > by a common denominator share a common quotient. > > That's all I got. > > Brad >
