Placate a number of `syntax-check' verifications.

  - "filesystem" -> "file system"
  - remove doubled words
  - use EXIT_* macros instead of literal numbers
  - update `syntax-check' exclusion files

7 files changed, 11 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/module/ice-9/boot-9.scm b/module/ice-9/boot-9.scm
index 03dad9b0d..75097b554 100644
--- a/module/ice-9/boot-9.scm
+++ b/module/ice-9/boot-9.scm
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 ;;; -*- mode: scheme; coding: utf-8; -*-
 
-;;;; Copyright (C) 1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011
-;;;; Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+;;;; Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
+;;;;   2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
+;;;;   Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 ;;;;
 ;;;; This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 ;;;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
@@ -3013,7 +3014,7 @@ module '(ice-9 q) '(make-q q-length))}."
           ;; 0 by printing a newline, but we then advance it by printing
           ;; the prompt.  However the port-column of the output port
           ;; does not typically correspond with the actual column on the
-          ;; screen, because the input is is echoed back!  Since the
+          ;; screen, because the input is echoed back!  Since the
           ;; input is line-buffered and thus ends with a newline, the
           ;; output will really start on column zero.  So, here we zero
           ;; it out.  See bug 9664.
@@ -3504,7 +3505,7 @@ module '(ice-9 q) '(make-q q-length))}."
 ;;; {`load'.}
 ;;;
 ;;; Load is tricky when combined with relative paths, compilation, and
-;;; the filesystem.  If a path is relative, what is it relative to?  The
+;;; the file system.  If a path is relative, what is it relative to?  The
 ;;; path of the source file at the time it was compiled?  The path of
 ;;; the compiled file?  What if both or either were installed?  And how
 ;;; do you get that information?  Tricky, I say.
diff --git a/module/ice-9/psyntax.scm b/module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
index 22c51613d..6ffcc2d58 100644
--- a/module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
+++ b/module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
@@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@
     ;;
     ;; The only wrinkle is when we want a macro to expand to code in another
     ;; module, as is the case for the r6rs `library' form -- the body expressions
-    ;; should be scoped relative the the new module, the one defined by the macro.
+    ;; should be scoped relative the new module, the one defined by the macro.
     ;; For that, use `(@@ mod-name body)'.
     ;;
     ;; Part of the macro output will be from the site of the macro use and part
diff --git a/module/ice-9/test.scm b/module/ice-9/test.scm
index f6080e4cf..179cfc35e 100644
--- a/module/ice-9/test.scm
+++ b/module/ice-9/test.scm
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 ;;;; "test.scm" Test correctness of scheme implementations.
 ;;; Author: Aubrey Jaffer
 ;;; Modified: Mikael Djurfeldt (Removed tests which Guile deliberately
-;;; won't pass.  Made the the tests (test-cont), (test-sc4), and
+;;; won't pass.  Made the tests (test-cont), (test-sc4), and
 ;;; (test-delay) start to run automatically.
 
 ;;; This includes examples from
diff --git a/module/language/elisp/runtime/macros.scm b/module/language/elisp/runtime/macros.scm
index a62f721e7..b28706781 100644
--- a/module/language/elisp/runtime/macros.scm
+++ b/module/language/elisp/runtime/macros.scm
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@
                         (progn ,@(cdr cur))
                         ,rest))))))))
 
-;;; The and and or forms can also be easily defined with macros.
+;;; The `and' and `or' forms can also be easily defined with macros.
 
 (built-in-macro and
   (case-lambda
diff --git a/module/language/tree-il/fix-letrec.scm b/module/language/tree-il/fix-letrec.scm
index 3d7db27a8..f387df193 100644
--- a/module/language/tree-il/fix-letrec.scm
+++ b/module/language/tree-il/fix-letrec.scm
@@ -239,7 +239,7 @@
                           c)
                      (list body)))
                    (else
-                    ;; Otherwise for plain letrec, evaluate the the "complex"
+                    ;; Otherwise for plain letrec, evaluate the "complex"
                     ;; bindings, in a `let' to indicate that order doesn't
                     ;; matter, and bind to their variables.
                     (list
diff --git a/module/srfi/srfi-1.scm b/module/srfi/srfi-1.scm
index d2347b0d1..d2531b59d 100644
--- a/module/srfi/srfi-1.scm
+++ b/module/srfi/srfi-1.scm
@@ -652,7 +652,7 @@ has just one element then that's the return value."
 (define map! map)
 
 (define (filter-map proc list1 . rest)
-  "Apply PROC to to the elements of LIST1... and return a list of the
+  "Apply PROC to the elements of LIST1... and return a list of the
 results as per SRFI-1 `map', except that any #f results are omitted from
 the list returned."
   (check-arg procedure? proc filter-map)
diff --git a/module/system/base/compile.scm b/module/system/base/compile.scm
index 953c93602..0bc11a30f 100644
--- a/module/system/base/compile.scm
+++ b/module/system/base/compile.scm
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
 ;;; This function is among the trickiest I've ever written. I tried many
 ;;; variants. In the end, simple is best, of course.
 ;;;
-;;; After turning this around a number of times, it seems that the the
+;;; After turning this around a number of times, it seems that the
 ;;; desired behavior is that .go files should exist in a path, for
 ;;; searching. That is orthogonal to this function. For writing .go
 ;;; files, either you know where they should go, in which case you tell