[R6RS] relationships between uid, <record name>, and rtd

[William D Clinger]

SRFI 76 (R6RS Records) talks about three seemingly related
things:

    uid
    <record name>
    record-type descriptor

One of the issues says

    There is no way to use a record-type descriptor created by an
    explicit call to make-record-type-descriptor as a parent type
    in a define-record-type form. Should this be rectified, for
    example by another define-record-type clause named parent-rtd?

That paragraph does not appear to be consistent with the rest
of the SRFI.  A programmer can obtain a record-type descripter
from a record-name via

(record-type-descriptor <record name>) (syntax)

    This evaluates to the record-type descriptor associated with
    the type specified by <record-name>.

    Note that record-type-descriptor works on both opaque and
    non-opaque record types.

A programmer can also obtain a name from a record-type-descriptor
via

(record-type-name rtd)

    Returns the name of the record-type descriptor rtd.

I foolishly assumed that the record-type-descriptor and the
record-type-name procedure would be inverses, but maybe they
aren't.  If not, then what is the relationship?

BTW, what kind of object is returned by the record-type-name
procedure?  The explicit-naming spec says

    <Record name>, <constructor name>, and <predicate name> must all
    be identifiers.

    <Record name> becomes the name of the record type. Additionally,
    it is bound by this definition to an expand-time or run-time
    description of the record type for use as parent name in
    syntactic record-type definitions that extend this definition.
    It may also be used as a handle to gain access to the underlying
    record-type descriptor and constructor descriptor (see
    record-type-descriptor and record-constructor-descriptor below).

But how can the record-type-name return an identifier?  I think
it would have to return a symbol.  If the record-type-descriptor
syntax and the record-type-name procedure are inverses, then I
think <record name> would just be a symbol.

If a <record name> is just a symbol, however, then there must be
some global table mapping symbols to record-type-descriptors.
Obviously there must be some such table for non-generative record
types, but why require such a thing for generative types?

Furthermore the procedural interface seems to imply some global
table mapping uids to record-type-descriptors.  Am I right about
that?  If so, what is the relationship between these two global
tables?

Will