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.)