Andre wrote:

 > Perhaps another keyword clause
 >
 >    (constructor <expression>)
 >
 > which can be left out for the default constructor.

 As an example, the hash-table example could be expressed:

  (define-type hash-table
    (constructor (k) (lambda (pred hasher size)
                       (k pred
                          hasher
                          (make-vector (nearest-prime size))
                          0)))
    (fields (pred   immutable)
            (hasher immutable)
            (data   mutable)
            (count  mutable))))

  (define-type eq-hash-table
    (parent hash-table)
    (constructor (k) (lambda (pred hasher size)
                       (k pred
                          hasher
                          size
                          0)))
    (fields (gc-count mutable)))

 All the initialization information is in a single place, and both
 the parent clause and the field clauses simplify.

 A record type with the default constructor ordering would simply
 omit the constructor clause:

   (define-type point
     (fields (x mutable)
             (y mutable)))

 which is actually a little more concise than the current specification.

 We don't need the INIT! clause any longer.  The last example from the
 document becomes:

   (define-type cpoint
     (parent point)
     (constructor (k) (lambda (x y c)
                        (set! *the-cpoint*
                              (k x
                                 y
                                 (color->rgb c)))
                        *the-cpoint*))
     (fields (rgb mutable)))

 So again, all the initialization information is in a single place.

 Cheers
 Andre