Am 03.12.2017 um 16:40 schrieb Sudarshan S Chawathe:
>> - 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.

Exactly.

>
> -chaw
>
> To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=gohaWWilB1k9w7Z85UNiF1gxOMLGp7fu