Ray Blaak wrote:
> Ray Blaak wrote:
>> I am ignorant of some of the passed record systems referenced, so
>> "rtd" does not seem obvious to me. "Record Type Data"?
> Ok:
> <definition>            -> <record type definition>
> Nevertheless, my suggestion still stands. For all the helper record
> methods and forms, something that more directly reads as being record
> related would be better than "rtd".

I suggest stating that notational conventions of R6RS Ch 6 are followed
and that /rtd/ is used for parameter names to indicate the corresponding
argument must be a record type descriptor.

For the parameter convention, rtd seems appropriate.  For names of
values, I personally would prefer replacing rtd with type-descriptor or
record-type-descriptor in any binding name [1].  I would rather have
informative names than brief names in a standards document.  In actual
code, it is easy to establish short abbreviations via renaming.

On the other hand, perhaps consistency with R6RS names should trump this
preference.

David

[1] The latter leads to the appearance of redundancy in the name
record-record-type-descriptor.  The former might worry people by leaving
the word "type" out there, unchaperoned, at the beginning of an identifier.