[R6RS] Argument order with `fxcopy-bit' and `fxcopy-bit-field'

[Michael Sperber]

William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> Mike wrote:
>> With `fxcopy-bit', the "source" argument is first.  With
>> `fxcopy-bit-field', it is last (and the "replacement" argument is
>> first), which seems counterintuitive for me.  Is this intentional?
>
> Are you misreading the specification?

Yes.  Thanks.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla