Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen scripsit:

> What does SRFI-131 have to say about it? Is SRFI-99's procedural layer
> mandatory for SRFI-131 or just the syntactic layer described. In the latter
> case, does SRFI-131 allow syntactic representations of the record type?

The intention was to use 131 as a patch to 99, but there's nothing to
prevent an implementer from using it on top of some other underlying
record system, given an appropriate implementation.  It could also
be used to extend R7RS-small's define-record-type syntax.  In addition,
an implementation of 99's syntax also counts as an implementation of 131.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie