> - 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.)

On a bit more thought, I think I understand.  It would make sense in
cases that do not require access to the type name but can still use the
constructor, accessors, etc.  Sorry for the noise.

-chaw