[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] No defaults given for sealed and opaque

[Michael Sperber]

AndrevanTonder <andre at het.brown.edu> writes:

> In the explicit and implicit naming syntactic layers, it is not stated
> what the default values for sealedness and opaqueness will be if the
> corresponding clauses are absent.

I see this is worded confusingly (as a result of a syntax change a
long time ago)---the issue was actually decided, with the defaults
being "not sealed" and "not opaque".  I'll try to clarify the wording.
Thanks for spotting!

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla