I've now got a copy of the published version of the ANSI Smalltalk
standard.  Has too much study driven me mad, or is the following
method description seriously broken?

5.6.2.28 Message:  raisedToInteger: operand
  Synopsis
    Answer the receiver raised to the power operand.
  Definition: <number>
    Answer the receiver raised to the power operand,
    which must be a whole number.
    If the operand is a whole number greater than or equal to zero,
    then the result is the receiver raised to the power operand.
>>> If operand is a negative whole number, then the result is
>>> equivalent to the reciprocal of the absolute value of the
>>> receiver raised to the power operand.

   ...

The highlighted sentence is ambiguous.
Suppose we have (p raisedToInteger: q) where p is a positive
integer and q is a negative integer.

Reading 1:
    The result is ... the reciprocal of ((the absolute value of
    the receiver) raised to the power operand).

      ^((self abs) raisedToInteger: operand) reciprocal

Reading 2:
    The result is ... (the reciprocal of (the absolute value of
    the receiver)) raised to the power operand.

     ^(self abs reciprocal) raisedToInteger: operand

Surely it should be
    The result is ... (the reciprocal of the receiver) raised to
    the power (the absolute value of operand).

     ^self reciprocal raisedTo: operand abs

or else
    The result is ... the reciprocal of (the receiver raised to
    the power (the absolute value of operand)).

     ^(self raisedTo: operand abs) reciprocal

There are other glitches I laughed at in the 1.9 draft, but
they don't seem quite as funny when I've paid for the final version
and they are still there.