I've updated the pull request.
On 12/6/22 9:11 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Thanks!
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 1:25 PM Bradley Lucier <[email protected]
<mailto:[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
