On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Matthew D Swank wrote:
Fair enough, but the difference in the implementation code is subtle enough to look like a typo.
I agree. This has confused others also, probably mostly because of the unfortunate choice of calling the second CONTENT by the same name as the first. If I were to write this again, I would either call it something like
possibly-updated-content-of-original-promise for clarity, or insist on including the comments that are in SRFI-45 in the distribution. Regards Andre