>From: Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@research.nj.nec.com>

>
>Do you mean <type name> considered as a name or <type name>
>considered as a symbol?  Suppose I define my own record macro
>that does not include a <type name> and expands into
>DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE:
>
> (define-syntax define-my-record-type
>   (syntax-rules ()
>     ((define-my-record-type . stuff)
>      (define-record-type this-type . stuff))))
>
>All of my record types might turn out to be the same.
>
>In any case, I think it would be a bad idea to introduce a
>new name space.

You are certainly right; it is either a new namespace or macro
system -dependent tricks to hook to the standard namespace
(it works in syntax-case v2.1 via bound-identifier=?, but the
semantics of the whole thing is not very clear). Generativity
is not ideal, but a new namespace will probably make things
worse.

Sergei