These comments are timely, as I have been preparing
a new draft of SRFI 99.

Derick Eddington wrote:
> The description of define-record-type does not explicitly make clear the
> mutability of the last two <field spec>
>
>               -> (<field name> <accessor name>)
>               -> (<field name> <accessor name> <mutator name>)
>
> The description defers to SRFI-9 for these but SRFI-9 does not mention
> their mutability.  Like the first two <field spec> introduced by this
> SRFI, the mutability should be clearly stated, to make clear that
> mutator procedures cannot manually (via rtd-mutator) be got for
> immutable fields.

Okay, will do.

Will