On 22/02/07, David Teller <David.Teller@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
> Now, unless I'm mistaken, OCaml's design is mostly towards structural
> typing. Usually, when one wants nominal typing, one resorts to abstract
> types safely hidden in modules. From this point of view, nominal typing
> of records is therefore somewhat surprising.
>
>
In general, there is a problem with structural (sub)typing... Although it
seems better and in all ways superior to nominal (sub)typing from the
theoretical point of view, practically, it is... slow. (At least when
compared to nominal (sub)typing).

- Tom