Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Wed 27 Oct 2010 00:53, Andreas Rottmann <a.rottmann@gmx.at> writes:
>
>> * module/rnrs/base.scm (error, assert): Define -- they were missing.
>>   (assertion-violation): Properly treat a #f `who' argument.
>>
>> * module/rnrs/conditions.scm (condition): Use `assertion-violation'
>>   instead of the undefined `raise'.
>>   (define-condition-type): Fix for multiple fields.
>> * test-suite/tests/r6rs-conditions.test: Test accessors of a
>>   multiple-field condition.  Also import `(rnrs base)' to allow
>>   stand-alone running of the tests; apparently the `@' references
>>   scattered throughout the R6RS modules make the libraries sensitive to
>>   their load order -- for instance, trying to load `(rnrs conditions)'
>>   before `(rnrs base)' is loaded fails.
>>
>> * module/rnrs/records/inspection.scm: Use `assertion-violation' instead
>>   of an explicit `raise'.
>> * module/rnrs/records/syntactic.scm (process-fields): Use
>>   `syntax-violation' instead of bogus invocations of `error'.
>
> This patch no longer applies. Apologies for the delay. Can you take a
> look at which parts are still valid?
>
It seems all of it is still relevant; I've attached a refreshed patch,
which should apply cleanly.