xxxxxx@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:

> I will refine the specification to make it clear that if a record type
> is opaque, then ref and set! should only work with the "public API" of
> the type.

Rather, I will leave opaque record types alone entirely.  I think I now
understand your logic: an opaque record type should not even be known as
a record type to anyone but its implementer.  Whether and how it will
work with the generic ref/set operations is entirely up to the
implementer (for whom I have `register-getter-with-setter!' now).

Taylan