Clément Pit-Claudel <cpitclaudel@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo., 11. Dez. 2017
um 23:26 Uhr:

> On 2017-12-11 16:37, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> > +*** … Don't define record types whose names clash with primitive type
> names.
> > +*** … Don't define record types named 'hash-table'.
>
> Could we just reserve these names and make it an error to define such
> records?
> Or, could we make type-of return `record-foo` instead of `foo`?
>
>
Yes, I would strongly prefer either of those.
(Though I'd prefer something like '(record foo) or a custom struct to make
parsing a bit easier, but that's a nit.)