Less verbose type definition form (was: [R6RS] Records comments)

[Manuel Serrano]

> 1) has a syntax that is more lightweight in the common
>     case, i.e. locally used non-extensible small records
> 
> 2) has a syntax that is easier to parse for humans (not based
>     on positional arguments)
> 
> 3) has a syntax that is more extensible (for adding new type
>     attributes or field attributes)
I'm with Marc on this proposal. May be is it just a matter of personal taste
but I have to admit that I prefer this syntax to the previous one. 

I would have some comments on this proposal. In particular, I don't
feel comfortable with the initialization stuff (first extension) but
before discussing this in detail, I will wait other comments to see
where we are going with now two concurrent proposals...

-- 
Manuel