On 18 January 2012 08:57, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué <aconchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
