On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 12:43 PM John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> In addition to the evidence already pesented, I did a search of the > various SRFIs with unfold procedures, and the rest all have the "p f g" (or > "stop? mapper successor") order. I therefore propose the following PFN: > > "As originally written, this SRFI placed the stop predicate P as the > second argument of <b>char-set-unfold</b> and <b>char-set-unfold-right</b>, > and the mapper procedure F as the first argument. However, the examples, > the sample implementation, and the unfold predicates in SRFI 1 and other > SRFIs with unfold procedures all agree on placing P as the first argument. > Implementers are therefore urged to treat the formal specification as > erroneous and P-first as the correct order of arguments. This will happen > automatically by using the unchanged sample implementation." > Is this better than adding an erratum and changing the signature? Since the examples in the document contradict the signature in the document, and since so many implementers have already used the adjusted signature, that seems okay. But I can use your proposed PFN text to describe the erratum.
