Hi Maxime,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes:

>>> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
>>
>>That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
>>things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
>>the current implementation in Guix does.
>
> I assume Guix->Guile.
>
> This modification of “left to the implementation” -> “what Guile does” is problematic, since it misleads readers into thinking this is the standard behaviour (it is after all named SRFI 64, not GRFI 64).
>
> “What Guile does” is also important information to have.

Yes, I agree.  I think this is actually what I did, but my way to wording
of this above was not very good, and my memory fails. A diff of a
freshly "snarfed" [0] srfi-64.html (from its most recent commit) against
the documented submitted, which was hand-tuned: