On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nor are type errors mentioned by most other functions, they are simply > implied. This convention is mentioned in the revised report [1]: > > It is an error for an operation to be presented with an argument that it > is not specified to handle. For succinctness, we follow the convention > that if an argument name is also the name of a type listed in section > *note Disjointness of types::, then that argument must be of the named > type. For example, ... > > [1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/r5rs_3.html#SEC11
I see, convinced. Thanks for the feedback. You can mark it as invalid and close it.
