A possible clarification.  
When <constructor spec> is (<constructor name> <field name> ...),

* <field name> can be either one of <field name> in the define-record-type form, or
  any of ancestor's field name.
* In the case if the record definition has the same field name as one of ancestor's, it shadows
  the ancestor's field name for the purpose of constructor; the constructor's argument initializes
  child's slot, and the ancestor's slot of the same name is left uninitialized.
* It is an error if the same identifier appears more than once in <field name> .. of the constructor spec.

These are not explicit in srfi-99's syntactic layer section, but can be derived from
the description of procedural layer description.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
John Cowan, co-author of SRFI 131, ERR5RS Record Syntax
(reduced), has asked me to announce "last call" for this
SRFI.  He believes that SRFI 131 is ready for finalization,
but would like to give reviewers one last chance to submit
corrections and feedback before we finalize it.

If you're interested in this SRFI, please give your feedback
via the SRFI 131 mailing list before Fri 12 Feb.  After
that, assuming that no major revisions are required, we will
declare it final.

This "last call" period is an experimental addition to the
SRFI process.  I welcome your feedback on the idea.  (Please
send that feedback to srfi-editors at srfi.schemers.org.)

To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=rrJbdCo6MJOz7pyx0eSPZxPyn4eaWzft