Michael Sperber wrote:
> As we found out in the discussion leading to the draft, for records,
> many facets of simplicity are in the eye of the beholder.  We spent a
> lof of time trying to make things as simple as we could by meeting the
> requirements spelled out in the rationale.  The current draft is, in
> many way, already significantly simpler than the previous one, and
> much closer to the spirit of SRFI 9 when it comes to the constructor
> mechanism.

As far as I can tell, the two forms of define-record-type don't actually
clash: I.e. a valid SRFI-9 define-record-type cannot be a valid
SRFI-76 define-record-type or vice versa.

For SRFI-9 define-record-type, the 3rd "argument" is a predicate name
- i.e. a symbol, and cannot be a list.

For SRFI-76, all arguments except the first type-specifier (in the
implicit-naming form) must be lists.

So an implementation can offer both at the same time.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/