The draft states that when defining a record type,

  NAME is bound to a representation of the record type itself, possibly
  as a syntactic form.

Why bother specifying this?  What's a syntactic form anyway?

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

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