> I would use something weaker, and I wouldn't use objects
> either. To me, this is essentially a dynamic scenario,
> so the data type should be dynamic. For example:
> 
> 	type field_t = [
> 	| `Title of string
> 	| `Intro of string
> 	| `Body of string
> 	| `Field of string * string
> 	]
> 
> 	type story_t = field_t list
> 

Hi,

Interesting idea, but how would you access the fields in a convenient
manner?  Note that nothing beats record access (say, story.title) or even
object method call (story#title) in convenience and readability.

(I guess the convenience aspect could be sorted out with a syntax
extension, but then we're moving into far more complex territory
than I hope is necessary...)

Cheers,
Dario




      ___________________________________________________________ 
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good  http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html