Formal comment #25 (defect)

"forall" and "exists" should use SRFI-1 equivalents
Reported by:	John Cowan

Component:	other
Version:	5.91

Rather than introducing novel "forall" and "exists" procedures, the
"any" and "every" procedures of SRFI-1 should be adopted, along with
the language of SRFI-1 describing them. SRFI-1 is a very successful
list library and should be used as the basis for selective inclusion
of new list-related features in R6RS.

RESPONSE:

As the comment hints, the `exists' and `forall' procedures have
semantics different from that of `any' and `every': `exists' and
`forall' do not handle the case where the argument lists have unequal
lengths.  In that respect, `exists' and `forall' are consistent with
`map' and `for-each'.  (This aspect of the semantics of `map' and
`for-each' is the subject of formal comment #26.)  

To avoid confusion with the similar, but not equivalent procedures of
SRFI 1, the new names were chosen.