A few more questions/comments on SRFI-150 (Draft #2 published: 2017/8/8).

- In Semantics, 2nd para, 1st item: Can type name really be #f?  If
  so, I don't understand the interpretation.  (I'm guessing it's a
  copy-paste thing.)

- What is the difference between specifying <parent> to be #f and not
  specifying a <parent> at all?  (I vaguely recall reading something
  along those lines in some other document, but I can't recall the
  details or the document.  Perhaps just a reminder or pointer may be
  useful here.)

- In Semantics, for the case of constructor specs of the form
  (<constructor name> <field name> ...): Is a <field name> also
  permitted to be an accessor name from an ancestor?  I think the
  current wording suggest not, which seems a bit odd to me.  (It seems
  more natural to allow it.)

- Minor: There's an extra "ancestor" in the above-referenced
  description.

Regards,

-chaw