[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Implementation-specific declarations

---
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: John Cowan
Email address: cowan at ccil.org
Issue type: Defect
Priority: Trivial
Component:  Informal semantics
Report version: 5.93
Summary: Implementation-specific declarations" is a stray expression
Report section 4.5 speaks of "implementation-specific declarations",
even though declarations have been gone since 5.91.  Some other
language should be chosen, such as "may provide non-conformant
implementation modes that do not guarantee safety."
-- 
What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the       John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped     cowan at ccil.org
banging their head against?  --Larry            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan