[R6RS] record-constructor suggestion

[Michael Sperber]

dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:

> I think I prefer to leave the door open for this change in the
> future by requiring the rtd argument for record-constructor, but I'm
> willing to go either way.

OK, but if there's still leeway even after the change, is this change
really worth it?  Few programmers are going to type calls to these
procedures anyway.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla