Andy Wingo scripsit:

> I think the division of valid kinds of declarations as "variable
> definitions, syntax definitions, or record-type definitions" is pretty
> nasty.  I don't see why record-type definitions can't be defined as a
> sequence of variable and syntax definitions.

The (IMHO ill-conceived) distinction between primitive and derived
syntax maintained by the R5RS has not been introduced into definitions,
library declarations, or procedures.  It's true that a record type
definition MAY be expanded to a sequence of syntax definitions and
variable definitions, but there is no requirement that this be so:
it may be treated as a co-equal primitive form.

--
John Cowan      <cowan@ccil.org>       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
                Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports