On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 09:58 -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > Right. In that respect, it's more like a record type: many possible
> > record types exist, but you only define the ones you want.
>
> Well, okay. How is this same problem handled for RECORD types, then?
What problem, exactly? For a given list of subtypes, there is only one
valid record type.
Also, record is not a great example. The implementation uses at least
one pretty horrible hack.
Regards,Jeff Davis