Programmer-defined data types, version 2

["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 (-:)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morry Katz
katz@polya.stanford.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------