On 12-Apr-06, at 6:49 AM, Michael Sperber wrote:

>
> We've received many very useful suggestions that helped us improve the
> R6RS Records SRFI.  Many thanks!
>
> In the current state, the only changes we have in the queue that we
> want to make before withdrawal are cosmetic in nature.  (This doesn't
> mean no changes will be made after withdrawal as part of the R6RS
> process; specifically, a number of open issues remain.)
>
> Therefore, we intend to withdraw in about a week.  If there is
> anything you want to say that hasn't been said on the mailing list,
> please do so now.
>
> --
> Cheers =8-} Mike
> Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

The record SRFI should not be withdrawn yet because there is a
possible interaction with SRFI 88 and SRFI 89 that have just appeared
(i.e. Keyword objects and Optional parameters).  I think there are
good reasons to consider the use of named optional parameters and
keywords in the record SRFI.  It can help simplify the syntax for
defining new record types (i.e. make it less verbose, and more
extensible) and it can also provide a convenient way of constructing
records with lots of parameters and/or with optional parameters (the
required fields would be required parameters of the constructor, and
the optional fields would be named optional parameters).  There is a
brief example of this in SRFI 88 to give an idea of the
possibilities.  However a detailed discussion and proposal for SRFI
76 should wait for the discussion on SRFI 88 and SRFI 89 to stabilize.

Marc