[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] condition type name convention description error

[Jed Davis]

---
This message is a formal comment which was submitted to formal-comment at r6rs.org, following the requirements described at: http://www.r6rs.org/process.html
---
Submitter's Name: Jed Davis
Submitter's Address: r6rs at jdev.users.panix.com
Type of Issue: Defect
Priority: Trivial
R6RS Component: Other (naming conventions)
Version: 5.92
Summary: The description of the naming convention for condition types
         is obviously incorrect.

On page 22, in section 5.6 (Naming conventions), lies the sentence "By
convention, the names of condition types usually end in '&'."  However,
the convention is in fact for them to *begin* with an ampersand, as can
be seen in many places, for example earlier on that same page ("...an
exception with condition type &assertion is raised...").

-- 
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l))))))  (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k)))))))    '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))