Programmer-defined data types, version 2

[Chris Hanson <cph>]

   Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 13:26:10 -0700
   From: Morris J. Katz <katz@Polya.Stanford.EDU>

      Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 14:42:33 edt
      From: cph@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Chris Hanson)

	 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 12:02:13 -0700
	 From: "Morris J. Katz" <katz@polya.stanford.edu>

	 For aesthetic reasons I would prefer to see
	     (MAKE-RECORD-TYPE type-name . field-names)
	 rather than
	     (MAKE-RECORD-TYPE type-name field-names)
	 as the for for MAKE-RECORD-TYPE.

	 How do others feel?

      I prefer having a single argument which is a list.  Not only does this
      reduce the number of characters that must be typed, but it simplifies
      abstraction on the `field-names' argument, and leaves the argument
      list open for adding arguments in the future.

   I might be swayed that it is important to leave the rest argument
   position open for future extensions; but, I hardly buy that the
   trade-off between 3 characters to form the list and one character per
   symbol to make it into a symbol represents enough of a difference in
   keystrokes to be important.  (My approach is actually shorter for
   records of 1 or 2 fields (-:)

Since I was obviously making an aesthetic argument, let's just
summarize by saying I prefer the aesthetics of a single list argument.
(I notice that you said nothing about my "abstraction" argument.)